Trump outrage of the day

[Kris]

Let's not forget this gem:
"I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."

[GuitarStv]

When Republicans cry about being called racists, can we just point to this?  Awarding of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to one of the most prominent (and well documented) racists in the country seems to be pretty open and shut on that matter.

[Kris]

When Republicans cry about being called racists, can we just point to this?  Awarding of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to one of the most prominent (and well documented) racists in the country seems to be pretty open and shut on that matter.

Trump supporters, anyway.

We can point to lots of evidence, actually. That doesn't mean they'll look in the mirror.

[GuitarStv]

With an approval rating in the 90s among Republicans, and zero opposition from any elected Republican on any action he makes . . . I don't believe there is a distinction between 'Republican' and 'Trump supporter' at this point.

[Omy]

Presidential Medal of Freedom given to shock conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, recognizing an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.



Let's look at some of the great work that this man has done to benefit America:

This of course, is the guy who began airing the song "Barack, the Magic Negro" in 2007 on his program.

“Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”

“Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”

“Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”

“I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.”

"Hu Jintao was just going, “Ching cha. Ching chang cho chow. Cha Chow. Ching Cho. Chi ba ba ba. Kwo kwa kwa kee. Cha ga ga. Ching chee chay. Ching zha bo ba. Chang cha. Chang cho chi che. Cha dee. Ooooh chee bada ba. Jee jee cho ba.” Nobody was translating, but that’s the closest I can get."

"“Holocaust?” Ninety million Indians? Only four million left? They all have casinos — what’s to complain about?"

"Obama’s America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. I mean, you put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety. But in Obama’s America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering “Yay! Right on, right on, right on, right on.”"

"When Clarence Thomas said uppity black thinks for himself means he’s off the reservation, so to speak. He’s not following the civil rights speech codes set forth by the Reverend Jackson and Al Sharpton and whoever else is in charge of them. But nobody — Obama is uppity, but not as a black. He is an elitist. He does think he’s smarter and better than everybody else. That’s what he was taught. He’s a Harvard man."

 "How many of you guys . . . have learned that 'no' means 'yes' if you know how to spot it?”

etc.

Thanks for this list...I will be using it.

[Aelias]

Presidential Medal of Freedom given to shock conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, recognizing an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.

It's not the worst thing Trump has done by a long damn shot, but this one really turned my fucking stomach.

Rush Limbaugh directly contributed to turning my husband's parents into confirmed racists who regularly say horrible things about other human beings.  It has driven a wedge in our family.  The legacy of Rush Limbaugh will be with us for the rest of our lives.

In the words of a wise Redditor (where "[a]dvocating for or celebrating the death of another human being is grounds for a permanent ban"), "May Rush Limbaugh receive the same empathy and respect he has always shown to others."
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/eyd0mb/rush_limbaugh_announces_he_has_lung_cancer/

[talltexan]

Presidential Medal of Freedom given to shock conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, recognizing an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.

Rush Limbaugh directly contributed to turning my husband's parents into confirmed racists who regularly say horrible things about other human beings.  It has driven a wedge in our family.  The legacy of Rush Limbaugh will be with us for the rest of our lives.

Do they ever say, "I'm not trying to sound racist, I'm just asking the question."?

[Aelias]

Presidential Medal of Freedom given to shock conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, recognizing an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.

Rush Limbaugh directly contributed to turning my husband's parents into confirmed racists who regularly say horrible things about other human beings.  It has driven a wedge in our family.  The legacy of Rush Limbaugh will be with us for the rest of our lives.

Do they ever say, "I'm not trying to sound racist, I'm just asking the question."?

At this point, I feel like they don't even bother trying to couch it that way.  Whatever racist thought enters their heads comes directly out of their mouths.  Why hide it?  The President says the same thing!

They were a little more circumspect a few years ago.  My personal favorite was my FIL going on a rant about "porch monkeys", but then going to great lengths to say that he didn't just mean black people.  Y'know, "porch monkeys" of any race!  ::facepalm::

[Glenstache]

Trump seems a bit outraged that Pelosi tore up his speech (literally).

[bacchi]

Trump seems a bit outraged that Pelosi tore up his speech (literally).

Fake outrage. He's getting his followers riled up.

But I'm surprised he's acting so thin skinned.

[ixtap]

Trump seems a bit outraged that Pelosi tore up his speech (literally).

Fake outrage. He's getting his followers riled up.

But I'm surprised he's acting so thin skinned.

Really? Because he is usually so thick skinned?

[bacchi]

Trump seems a bit outraged that Pelosi tore up his speech (literally).

Fake outrage. He's getting his followers riled up.

But I'm surprised he's acting so thin skinned.

Really? Because he is usually so thick skinned?

Well...good point. He's such a narcissist that it may be insulting when someone doesn't acknowledge his greatness. He certainly is insecure about his hand size and intelligence. And net worth.

[Kris]

Trump seems a bit outraged that Pelosi tore up his speech (literally).

Fake outrage. He's getting his followers riled up.

But I'm surprised he's acting so thin skinned.

Really? Because he is usually so thick skinned?

Well...good point. He's such a narcissist that it may be insulting when someone doesn't acknowledge his greatness. He certainly is insecure about his hand size and intelligence. And net worth.

And dick size. And crowd size. And height. And weight. And...

[talltexan]

Romney announcing he will vote for removal. Liberals are all excited.

Imagine how disappointed they'll be when Manchin and Jones vote against removal.

[PathtoFIRE]

Acquittal was a foregone conclusion, see Senator McConnell's/Graham's statements to that effect. No, what this does is dispel the already false notion that impeachment and removal are partisan.

[Glenstache]

Acquittal was a foregone conclusion, see Senator McConnell's/Graham's statements to that effect. No, what this does is dispel the already false notion that impeachment and removal are partisan.

...but don't Senator McConnell's/Graham's statements make acquittal explicitly partisan?

[JLee]

Romney announcing he will vote for removal. Liberals are all excited.

Imagine how disappointed they'll be when Manchin and Jones vote against removal.

Where are you getting this information that "liberals are all excited"? I don't know a single person who expects anyone in the GOP to have a shred of integrity.

[PathtoFIRE]

Acquittal was a foregone conclusion, see Senator McConnell's/Graham's statements to that effect. No, what this does is dispel the already false notion that impeachment and removal are partisan.

...but don't Senator McConnell's/Graham's statements make acquittal explicitly partisan?

Oh yes, no doubt the Republicans have _almost all_ acted in a purely partisan way, in the House and in the Senate. Just because it is mostly (D)s who voted for impeachment in the House, and mostly (D)s who will probably vote for removal in the Senate doesn't make these votes partisan. It's just the flip sides of those votes that are partisan. *sits back and watches the Trump apologists heads explode*

[former player]

Romney announcing he will vote for removal. Liberals are all excited.

Imagine how disappointed they'll be when Manchin and Jones vote against removal.

Where are you getting this information that "liberals are all excited"? I don't know a single person who expects anyone in the GOP to have a shred of integrity.

Jones has already said he will vote for removal, so you are wrong about that too.

[JLee]

Romney announcing he will vote for removal. Liberals are all excited.

Imagine how disappointed they'll be when Manchin and Jones vote against removal.

Where are you getting this information that "liberals are all excited"? I don't know a single person who expects anyone in the GOP to have a shred of integrity.

Jones has already said he will vote for removal, so you are wrong about that too.

What am I wrong about?

[Bloop Bloop]

I don't positively wish harm on anyone, but if Trump and Limbaugh were in a "car" together and it "went off the road", I wouldn't be sad reading their obituaries.

[Kris]

I don't positively wish harm on anyone, but if Trump and Limbaugh were in a "car" together and it "went off the road", I wouldn't be sad reading their obituaries.

It would be hard to be sad about either’s demise. The world is worse off for both of these men being in it.

[bacchi]

Romney announcing he will vote for removal. Liberals are all excited.

Imagine how disappointed they'll be when Manchin and Jones vote against removal.

Where are you getting this information that "liberals are all excited"? I don't know a single person who expects anyone in the GOP to have a shred of integrity.

Jones has already said he will vote for removal, so you are wrong about that too.

What am I wrong about?

I think former player meant talltexan's comment.

The first charge was "bipartisan" because of Romney; the 2nd charge was along party lines.

[js82]

I don't positively wish harm on anyone, but if Trump and Limbaugh were in a "car" together and it "went off the road", I wouldn't be sad reading their obituaries.

It would be hard to be sad about either’s demise. The world is worse off for both of these men being in it.

I wouldn't wish death/cancer on anyone.  That said, death/cancer should not give anyone immunity from being called out for all the awful things they did/said.

[former player]

Romney announcing he will vote for removal. Liberals are all excited.

Imagine how disappointed they'll be when Manchin and Jones vote against removal.

Where are you getting this information that "liberals are all excited"? I don't know a single person who expects anyone in the GOP to have a shred of integrity.

Jones has already said he will vote for removal, so you are wrong about that too.

What am I wrong about?

I think former player meant talltexan's comment.

The first charge was "bipartisan" because of Romney; the 2nd charge was along party lines.

Thanks. bacchi.  Yes, I did mean talltexan's comment about Jones (and as it turns out Manchin too) voting for Trump being wrong.

[talltexan]

I will own that I was wrong in my cynical comment that Jones and Manchin would vote to acquit.

Don't know how Democrats keep that seat in Alabama with Jones this November.

[former player]

I will own that I was wrong in my cynical comment that Jones and Manchin would vote to acquit.

Don't know how Democrats keep that seat in Alabama with Jones this November.

They quite likely don't.  Romney's vote has delivered him to the opprobrium of Trump supporters, Jones' to the loss of his seat.  Both, admirably, put other interests above the personal.

[talltexan]

I must admit, I expected some blowback to Romney for this vote, but I didn't expect it to be based on his faith.

Brian Kilmede: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj_2eW4kL3nAhWMg-AKHV96ARoQ0PADMAJ6BAgGEA0&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediaite.com%2Ftv%2Fbrian-kilmeade-ridicules-mitt-romneys-faith-in-voting-to-convict-trump-on-impeachment-are-you-kidding%2F&usg=AOvVaw1qFfTrutVS_I6Cq9oA8A7c

Trump, himself, at prayer breakfast: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=25&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj_2eW4kL3nAhWMg-AKHV96ARoQFjAYegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fpolitics%2F2020%2F02%2F06%2Fwatch-live-president-donald-trump-speaks-at-national-prayer-breakfast%2F&usg=AOvVaw0jQXFUIW1snJ11jyop6PrS

So, is faith only important if that faith leads you to align with the President?

[sherr]

So, is faith only important if that faith leads you to align with the President?

I mean, yes? Evangelicals have been openly telling people that "true Christians" are required to vote Republican for as long as I've been alive. And it's only gotten heavier with Trump. I'm surprised that you were expecting anything different.

[Just Joe]

Deutsche Bank was trying to expand into the US market and was looking for investing opportunities which is why they worked with Donald Trump.

Why wouldn't they foreclose on Trump? I'm not a financial whiz, don't know if loans for tall buildings are the same as loans for a brick rancher on 1/3 acre...

[OtherJen]

So, is faith only important if that faith leads you to align with the President?

I mean, yes? Evangelicals have been openly telling people that "true Christians" are required to vote Republican for as long as I've been alive. And it's only gotten heavier with Trump. I'm surprised that you were expecting anything different.

That was also the Catholic party line when I was growing up. Still is, in many circles, although several of my more civic-minded Catholic friends now see through the bullshit.

[nereo]

I must admit, I expected some blowback to Romney for this vote, but I didn't expect it to be based on his faith.

Brian Kilmede: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj_2eW4kL3nAhWMg-AKHV96ARoQ0PADMAJ6BAgGEA0&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediaite.com%2Ftv%2Fbrian-kilmeade-ridicules-mitt-romneys-faith-in-voting-to-convict-trump-on-impeachment-are-you-kidding%2F&usg=AOvVaw1qFfTrutVS_I6Cq9oA8A7c

Trump, himself, at prayer breakfast: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=25&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj_2eW4kL3nAhWMg-AKHV96ARoQFjAYegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fpolitics%2F2020%2F02%2F06%2Fwatch-live-president-donald-trump-speaks-at-national-prayer-breakfast%2F&usg=AOvVaw0jQXFUIW1snJ11jyop6PrS

So, is faith only important if that faith leads you to align with the President?

Well Romney is a Mormon, as are a large block of his supporters, and Mormonism has always been the outcast among Protestant religions
Not really surprised they feel so free to attack him and question his faith

[nereo]

I don't positively wish harm on anyone, but if Trump and Limbaugh were in a "car" together and it "went off the road", I wouldn't be sad reading their obituaries.

Is it bad that when I heard Rush was seriously ill that I thought "Oh good - he won't be on the radio much longer..."

Then I remembered I'm not wired to wish misfortune on other people.

So has Trump and his pundits redefined politics for the worse?

There is a niche, and a motive ($) - someone will rise to fill Rush's spot once he no longer occupies it. 
Outrage and fear makes money, and apparently the more outrageous and the more fear one spreads the greater the profits to be had.  Some ass-hat will rise to the occasion, that is to be sure.  Thinking "oh good, we'll be rid of him" is a fool's errand.  Like whak-a-mole others will pop up.

Note that this probably holds for the other end of the spectrum. 

What is much harder is to change the manner of discourse.  Simply getting them off the air (or whatever platform they are currently using) won't do much, as Alex Jones proved when he was booted from YouTube.  The hateful and fearful will seek out those who fuel their hate and fear and make them feel validated (aka "Confirmation Bias").   Getting people to stop referring to the other political party as "the enemy" wil be much harder.

[Just Joe]

So - are we circling the drain hole? I want to imagine an optimistic future for our country but these folks are making that difficult to do. Being publicly hateful is making these people wealthy but it also causing a societal rot.

More reason to think that the conservatives' wish for a return to the "Good Ole Days" doesn't mean the same thing to us all.

[nereo]

So - are we circling the drain hole? I want to imagine an optimistic future for our country but these folks are making that difficult to do. Being publicly hateful is making these people wealthy but it also causing a societal rot.

More reason to think that the conservatives' wish for a return to the "Good Ole Days" doesn't mean the same thing to us all.

he

We've been at odds with one another before.  The Red Scare. Populism in the early 20th century. Reconstruction.  Slave vs. Free states. Loyalists vs. Seperatists. 

Time will tell how this will end, but my hope is that the younger generations will just get sick of all this BS and infomerical-type politics and it will fade away.  There's signs this might happen - unlike older generations, millennials and "Z"s identify less with a political party (or religion or just about any organized group) than other generations did when they were their age. They've also grown up with realtiy TV and seem less impressed with its theatrics and staged quality. TV stars don't impress them as much.  Shifting demograhics won't be kind to a party that continues to double-down on non-college educated white men.

Gerrymandering might also (slowly and painfully) lose out to court challenges and new legislatures.  Ranked choice voiting (yay Maine!) clubs away the more extreme candidates in favor of those who can appeal to more people... you know... like a functioning democracy should...

None are foregone conclusions, but I have some reason to hope...  It might be painfully slow, taking another decade, but ...maybe?

[eljefe-speaks]

Thanks nerero. I have been fuming all day about Trump's hate-filled, shameless, tactless, despicable victory party today and your post is the only thing that has made me feel marginally better.

[sherr]

Note that this probably holds for the other end of the spectrum. 

And who exactly is the Left equivalent of a hate-monger like Rush?

Simply getting them off the air (or whatever platform they are currently using) won't do much, as Alex Jones proved when he was booted from YouTube.  The hateful and fearful will seek out those who fuel their hate and fear and make them feel validated (aka "Confirmation Bias").

This part is demonstrably not true (as much as such a thing can be proven). When Reddit (for example) quarantines or bans a hate subreddit it drastically decreases the amount of hate speech anywhere on the platform. Those people don't just migrate to the new hatemonger, their hate speech reduces by 80%. "Deplatforming" hate-mongers and conspiracy theorists does actually make a difference. It not only removes one the major sources of the problem, it also lets their followers know that this is not socially acceptable behavior.

[js82]

I will own that I was wrong in my cynical comment that Jones and Manchin would vote to acquit.

Don't know how Democrats keep that seat in Alabama with Jones this November.

They quite likely don't.  Romney's vote has delivered him to the opprobrium of Trump supporters, Jones' to the loss of his seat.  Both, admirably, put other interests above the personal.

In all fairness, Jones wasn't going to be reelected anyways.  Alabama isn't keeping a democratic senator in office unless the republicans are dumb enough to renominate Roy Moore(or someone similarly absurd).  The leading republican candidates this time around will most likely stomp Jones, independent of his vote on impeachment.

[talltexan]

Maybe that's how we can deprogram reluctant Trump supporters: since the Republicans will hold the Senate, the chances of Sanders or Warren doing anything policy-wise are zero.

Meanwhile, you won't have all of the Trump baggage to deal with anymore. So what are you really worried about?

[bacchi]

Maybe that's how we can deprogram reluctant Trump supporters: since the Republicans will hold the Senate, the chances of Sanders or Warren doing anything policy-wise are zero.

Meanwhile, you won't have all of the Trump baggage to deal with anymore. So what are you really worried about?

Even with a 51-49 Dem control of the Senate, I wouldn't expect half of what Warren/Sanders plans to happen. Look at the ACA -- the Dems had Senate and House control and single payer, universal, care wasn't possible.

[talltexan]

Right, and with 51-49 Republican control, Warren or Sanders wouldn't get to appoint a single judge.

If you're a traditional republican who is disgusted by Trump's antics but general thinks things are going well, that should seem appealing to you.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Maybe that's how we can deprogram reluctant Trump supporters: since the Republicans will hold the Senate, the chances of Sanders or Warren doing anything policy-wise are zero.

Meanwhile, you won't have all of the Trump baggage to deal with anymore. So what are you really worried about?

Even with a 51-49 Dem control of the Senate, I wouldn't expect half of what Warren/Sanders plans to happen. Look at the ACA -- the Dems had Senate and House control and single payer, universal, care wasn't possible.

Would Virginia's legislative example right now influence your perspective on this at all?

[John Galt incarnate!]

Even with a 51-49 Dem control of the Senate, I wouldn't expect half of what Warren/Sanders plans to happen. Look at the ACA -- the Dems had Senate and House control and single payer, universal, care wasn't possible.

"If I am elected president I will _____________" is an oft-repeated and misleading  declaration .

What the candidates ought to  say is "If Congress passes _____________ bill I will sign it into law."

[skp]

Even with a 51-49 Dem control of the Senate, I wouldn't expect half of what Warren/Sanders plans to happen. Look at the ACA -- the Dems had Senate and House control and single payer, universal, care wasn't possible.

"If I am elected president I will _____________" is an oft-repeated and misleading  declaration .

What the candidates ought to  say is "If Congress passes _____________ bill I will sign it into law."

Funny, no one says, "If Congress won't pass my ___________________bill, I'll just make an executive order.  Seems like both parties are doing that more and more.  Maybe that's something both sides would agree on.  So count me leary about believing the argument of  "not expecting half of what Warren/ Sanders plans to happen.

[ixtap]

Even with a 51-49 Dem control of the Senate, I wouldn't expect half of what Warren/Sanders plans to happen. Look at the ACA -- the Dems had Senate and House control and single payer, universal, care wasn't possible.

"If I am elected president I will _____________" is an oft-repeated and misleading  declaration .

What the candidates ought to  say is "If Congress passes _____________ bill I will sign it into law."

Funny, no one says, "If Congress won't pass my ___________________bill, I'll just make an executive order.  Seems like both parties are doing that more and more.  Maybe that's something both sides would agree on.  So count me leary about believing the argument of  "not expecting half of what Warren/ Sanders plans to happen.

Not sure what era you are comparing it to?

[skp]

Even with a 51-49 Dem control of the Senate, I wouldn't expect half of what Warren/Sanders plans to happen. Look at the ACA -- the Dems had Senate and House control and single payer, universal, care wasn't possible.

"If I am elected president I will _____________" is an oft-repeated and misleading  declaration .

What the candidates ought to  say is "If Congress passes _____________ bill I will sign it into law."

Funny, no one says, "If Congress won't pass my ___________________bill, I'll just make an executive order.  Seems like both parties are doing that more and more.  Maybe that's something both sides would agree on.  So count me leary about believing the argument of  "not expecting half of what Warren/ Sanders plans to happen.

Not sure what era you are comparing it to?

Recent???  My understanding is there have been an increased use of executive orders that have been used by  Trump, Obama, and Bush  to circumvent congress.  If a president can't get his bill passed by congress, he just signs it into law himself.  Am I wrong?  Just did a little research.  Obama issued 923 executive orders in 40 months and Trump so far 138.  Feel free to fact check me.

[GuitarStv]

Even with a 51-49 Dem control of the Senate, I wouldn't expect half of what Warren/Sanders plans to happen. Look at the ACA -- the Dems had Senate and House control and single payer, universal, care wasn't possible.

"If I am elected president I will _____________" is an oft-repeated and misleading  declaration .

What the candidates ought to  say is "If Congress passes _____________ bill I will sign it into law."

Funny, no one says, "If Congress won't pass my ___________________bill, I'll just make an executive order.  Seems like both parties are doing that more and more.  Maybe that's something both sides would agree on.  So count me leary about believing the argument of  "not expecting half of what Warren/ Sanders plans to happen.

Not sure what era you are comparing it to?

Recent???  My understanding is there have been an increased use of executive orders that have been used by  Trump, Obama, and Bush  to circumvent congress.  If a president can't get his bill passed by congress, he just signs it into law himself.  Am I wrong?  Just did a little research.  Obama issued 923 executive orders in 40 months and Trump so far 138.  Feel free to fact check me.

Obama issued 276 executive orders during his two terms in office.  Twenty-odd fewer than Bush Jr . . . who issued 70 fewer than Clinton.  Your number for Trump is correct though!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

[Davnasty]

Even with a 51-49 Dem control of the Senate, I wouldn't expect half of what Warren/Sanders plans to happen. Look at the ACA -- the Dems had Senate and House control and single payer, universal, care wasn't possible.

"If I am elected president I will _____________" is an oft-repeated and misleading  declaration .

What the candidates ought to  say is "If Congress passes _____________ bill I will sign it into law."

Funny, no one says, "If Congress won't pass my ___________________bill, I'll just make an executive order.  Seems like both parties are doing that more and more.  Maybe that's something both sides would agree on.  So count me leary about believing the argument of  "not expecting half of what Warren/ Sanders plans to happen.

Not sure what era you are comparing it to?

Recent???  My understanding is there have been an increased use of executive orders that have been used by  Trump, Obama, and Bush  to circumvent congress.  If a president can't get his bill passed by congress, he just signs it into law himself.  Am I wrong?  Just did a little research.  Obama issued 923 executive orders in 40 months and Trump so far 138.  Feel free to fact check me.

Obama issued 276 executive orders during his two terms in office.  Twenty-odd fewer than Bush Jr . . . who issued 70 fewer than Clinton.  Your number for Trump is correct though!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

With Roosevelt coming in a 3,728 executive orders issued, I don't think you can say that the use of executive orders is increasing.

But the point stands that a Republican senate doesn't automatically mean Warren/Sanders would be unable to get the policies into law.

To be honest though, my understanding of just how much power executive order gives a president is limited. Could a president really make anything they want into law until it is vetoed by a supermajority or overruled by the Supreme Court ? I assume there are limitations, but what are they?

[ixtap]

Even with a 51-49 Dem control of the Senate, I wouldn't expect half of what Warren/Sanders plans to happen. Look at the ACA -- the Dems had Senate and House control and single payer, universal, care wasn't possible.

"If I am elected president I will _____________" is an oft-repeated and misleading  declaration .

What the candidates ought to  say is "If Congress passes _____________ bill I will sign it into law."

Funny, no one says, "If Congress won't pass my ___________________bill, I'll just make an executive order.  Seems like both parties are doing that more and more.  Maybe that's something both sides would agree on.  So count me leary about believing the argument of  "not expecting half of what Warren/ Sanders plans to happen.

Not sure what era you are comparing it to?

Recent???  My understanding is there have been an increased use of executive orders that have been used by  Trump, Obama, and Bush  to circumvent congress.  If a president can't get his bill passed by congress, he just signs it into law himself.  Am I wrong?  Just did a little research.  Obama issued 923 executive orders in 40 months and Trump so far 138.  Feel free to fact check me.

Obama issued 276 executive orders during his two terms in office.  Twenty-odd fewer than Bush Jr . . . who issued 70 fewer than Clinton.  Your number for Trump is correct though!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

Moreover, all of these numbers are actually down from the 20th century average. So yeah, I guess compared to the 17th and 18th century presidents?

[talltexan]

Even with a 51-49 Dem control of the Senate, I wouldn't expect half of what Warren/Sanders plans to happen. Look at the ACA -- the Dems had Senate and House control and single payer, universal, care wasn't possible.

"If I am elected president I will _____________" is an oft-repeated and misleading  declaration .

What the candidates ought to  say is "If Congress passes _____________ bill I will sign it into law."

Funny, no one says, "If Congress won't pass my ___________________bill, I'll just make an executive order.  Seems like both parties are doing that more and more.  Maybe that's something both sides would agree on.  So count me leary about believing the argument of  "not expecting half of what Warren/ Sanders plans to happen.

Not sure what era you are comparing it to?

Recent???  My understanding is there have been an increased use of executive orders that have been used by  Trump, Obama, and Bush  to circumvent congress.  If a president can't get his bill passed by congress, he just signs it into law himself.  Am I wrong?  Just did a little research.  Obama issued 923 executive orders in 40 months and Trump so far 138.  Feel free to fact check me.

Obama issued 276 executive orders during his two terms in office.  Twenty-odd fewer than Bush Jr . . . who issued 70 fewer than Clinton.  Your number for Trump is correct though!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

With Roosevelt coming in a 3,728 executive orders issue, I don't think you can say that the use of executive orders is increasing.

But the point stands that a Republican senate doesn't automatically mean Warren/Sanders would be unable to get the policies into law.

To be honest though, my understanding of just how much power executive order gives a president is limited. Could a president really make anything they want into law until it is vetoed by a supermajority or overruled by the Supreme Court ? I assume there are limitations, but what are they?

What's weird about Roosevelt having so many is that Democrats controlled Congress through almost all of his twelve years. He should have been able to get anything he wanted from them.