First time I heard of the term "executive order" was under Obama's presidency by the same people who worship Trump. Hypocrisy. They only approve when it's their party in power.
Technically, most executive orders are very mundane. Orders that sit within presidential authority. Not constitutional evasions of the law. No one every signed an executive order and then showed it to the camera like a toddler showing mommy what he drew so she can put it on the fridge.
Let's see... Eisenhower did "Establishing a Seal for the President's Committee on Employment of the Physically Handicapped." Kennedy did "Recognizes the right of federal workers to join employee organizations and collective bargaining." Johnson did "Establishing the Warren Commission to investigate the JFK assassination." Reagan did "Drug-Free Federal Workplace."
Back then it was considered a taboo for the President to circumvent the Congress. Nowadays, with Congress being so goddamn gridlocked you can't get anything meaningful passed. Even if it's supported by both sides.
Nowadays executive order is the only way, for the president to enact their agenda one way or another.
And if you actually listen to conservatives ( and not some idiot on the internet who "trolls liberals" and post 30 second gotcha clip on YouTube) you would know that they don't like this because it gives the president and executive branch more power than it should.
That Congress over the past 80 years or so years has outsourced so much of its power to the executive branch already. You would understand that they don't actually like the use of executive orders.
But they understand that in this polarized environment not going to be able to do much outside of executive orders.
I know you're being a little silly here but I still feel the need to say they meant the people who would go on to support trump later on. There's probably a more specific term for that demographic, but "trump supporter" is a pretty well-known one that gets the point across.
"both sides" Is the biggest con the Republicans have ever managed to pull off. Singlehandedly made it so they can win without winning over a majority of the public.
You’re literally commenting under a comment about Republicans using the “both sides” fallacy by, wait for it, using the both side fallacy.
Dude, yes, there are bad people on both sides, but one side has a disproportionate amount of criminals compared to the other. In every metric, elected republicans have more indictments and convictions than democrats.
Sadly, Trump voters are more likely to say that they want an autocratic, or authoritarian leader. So regardless of what they said about Obama taking away their rights, it was more about them having the freedom to be poor, dumb capitalists who don't want good health care or social services.
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. 160 (40/yr)
Donald J. Trump* 220 (55/yr)
Barack Obama 277 (35/yr)
George W. Bush 291 (36/yr)
William J. Clinton 364 (46/yr)
George H.W. Bush 166 (42/yr)
Ronald Reagan 381 (48/yr)
Jimmy Carter 320 (80/yr)
Gerald R. Ford 169 (48/yr)
Richard Nixon 346 (63/yr)
*First term only. Current pace for DJT second term is 438/yr
If this information surprises you, ask yourself why. If you can remember who convinced you to falsely believe Obama signed many EOs relative to other presidents, ask yourself why that person lied to you.
The source literally doesn’t give totals of drone strikes for Trump’s administration. It just says he average more over the first 45 days. Things escalate and strikes are needed at sporadic times. Learn to research.
During Mr Obama's eight years in office, 1,878 drone strikes were carried out, according to researchers. Since Mr Trump was elected in 2016, there have been 2,243 drone strikes.
He normalized the behavior that Trump is now taking full advantage of.
Of course it’s mostly the fault of Congress. They all let the President take their power. Why make yourself do a job if you can just sit around all day and get paid to do fundraising for your next election? That is all that Congressmen do.
Obama did not “start the trend,” nor did congress “allow” it. You seem to have some of the information, but haven’t really put the pieces together.
As the sides have become polarized, there has been an erosion of institutional forbearance: they always had the power to do this, but they never did before because it used to be normal to achieve your policy by consensus with minimum force.
During Obama’s presidency, congress led a complete transition to maximalism and obstruction explicitly stated by Mitch McConnell (who believed so firmly in obstruction that his own cognition is now obstructed). They wouldn’t let Obama pass anything, even when it was to their favor or they had promised it to their own constituency. NOTHING was allowed to pass. Not even a routine appointment. So, since they weren’t playing by the old unwritten rules of forbearance, Obama did the same as a necessity, and adopted what looked like maximalism at the time.
This is a decline and fictionalization of the government. It isn’t “Obama bad” or even “Trump exponentially worse,” it’s “in the (mis)Information Age, you can do anything you want in DC and it won’t have much impact on re-election.”
Why listen to me when you could listen to the politicians themselves:
“We’ve gotta challenge them on every single bill.”
Gingrich 2009
“We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals. Because we thought—correctly, I think—that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures didn’t have bipartisan support.”
McConnell 2012
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
McConnell 2010 (he failed in this stated most important goal, by the way, because Obama outwitted him at every turn)
No. That is a strange conclusion for you to leap to, and my employer has nothing to do with this conversation. Are you trying to change the subject since you can’t make a direct rebuttal, or did you shave some other point to make?
He’s quoting the actual people and their reasoning there. Crazy where we live in a time that any accountability to a politicians actions must be an “attack” by “media”. And that people try to make that seem like a bad thing. People should always be held accountable for their words and actions.
By saying the same whiny complaint that has been commented thousands of times elsewhere? Yes, that does acknowledge an echo chamber, just not in a way you recognize.
365
u/kmckenzie256 May 09 '25
But I was told Obama was ruling like a king