President Obama's "passive-aggressive" inaction

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jnpy!$4g3cwk, Jun 17, 2012.

  1. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #1
    The immigration issue has brought this issue to the fore once again. From my reading of history, it seems that every single President (who lived long enough in office) was criticized for this one time or another. (With the possible exception of John Quincy Adams.)


    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77486.html

    I wonder if it is a flaw in the system that this type of situation happens so frequently, or, is it a wonderful feature of the "checks and balances" form of government?
     
  2. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #2
    Progress can too easily get holed up by bureaucracy, filibustering, not having a strong enough majority etc

    At some point, things have to move forward. When faced with nutjobs like the GOP, really, does anyone truly care if their input is left out?

    GOP were in power long enough, and much of the procedural rules are of their own devise. See how they hate it when it's used against them :D

    As for 'a flaw' in the system? I would say the whole system is flawed. Democracy is only achievable when the population votes on changes, not politicians. Constant warmongering and inept diplomacy has proved politicians can't be allowed to represent us.
     
  3. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #3
    Mitt Romney was standing on the same stage and vetting Marco Rubio to be his vice president; what I find hillarious is that Rubio proposed a form of immigration/dream act reform that was almost exactly what President Obama is doing now.

    Guess he's not going to be VP now.
     
  4. AhmedFaisal Guest

    #4
    What Obama is doing is handing Romney the election.

    - He betrayed labor by being a no show in Wisconsin. So labor turnout will be low in November.

    - He pissed of the middle class with his recent moves on immigration, which in itself was not surprising considering his behavior surrounding the Arizona immigration law. It may have been a bad law, but rather than realizing that it was basically an act of desperation by a state that was suffering severely from federal inaction on immigration, he met it with what we on the left get often accused of, sneering elitism.

    So basically Romney is winning by default. And considering that the current GOP is basically a bunch of rabid whackjobs, it is incredible that Romney is even able to give Obama a run for his money, let alone beat him.....
     
  5. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #5
    Are you out of your mind? Yes, he could have done more in Wisconsin, but that was a losing effort, and his absence doesn't give anything away. The Republicans still are doing everything in their power to attack unions and collective bargaining. If you vote for a Republican and you are in the middle class, especially if you are in a union household, you're a fool voting against your own interests.

    As for immigration, you clearly are as informed as the general public. Under Obama, deportations went way up and the net flow across the border was reversed. Enforcement is way up and the amount of resources dedicated to the border are way up. The problem of immigration is not just who is crossing on any particular day, but who is already here. Obama has deported a ton of those who were here, his policies (and economy) have reversed the flow across the border, he has drastically increased border security, and now is addressing the issue of people who are already here.

    If you think that's giving something to the GOP, you might want to slow down a little, and take a look at the electorate and polling on these issues.
     

Share This Page