Hillary will make sequestration style deals aka 'pragmatism', Sanders will do it by executive order

[AgingAmerican]

And let the courts fight it out. All three branches being equal, just bypass the dysfunctional toxic congress.
That's how you get things done without constantly losing ground to the right.

[Agschmid]

1. Um...

It would just be better to get a congress that works.

Executive order isn't a great strategy.

[AgingAmerican]

2. We don't have a congress that works

Let the president and the courts fight it out. Bypass congress. The judiciary and the Executive branch are each equally as powerful as the Congress. So what if the GOP doesn't like it. Its in the constitution.

[Agschmid]

9. Executive Orders are not the way to go.

It's a trip down a rabbit hole.

[upaloopa]

55. Yes bypass the whole fucking Constitution

the rest of the country and force your revolution on us all.

No thanks

[merrily]

14. Just get a Congress that works? Gee, why did no one think of that? It's so easy, too.

Republicans will control the House until 2020, if not beyond. And most of the Democrats in both houses are DINOs, thanks to policies of the DNC, the DCCC and the DSCC.

[Agschmid]

63. Using executive orders to do everything is not, nor should it be the solution.

[merrily]

64. Different issue than the one raised in my reply.

[Agschmid]

66. Not really...

We all need to be working to effect change in congressional races so executive orders do not have to be used.

It's that simple.

It looks like either candidate can win the GE so at this point it's about down ticket races.

[merrily]

69. Yes, really. I know which issues my reply raised.

[Agschmid]

70. Hi I am a democrat, I hear you are too.

We are actually on the same side here, I know shocker.

See you around.

[merrily]

71. What on earth does that have to do with your Reply 1 and my response to it?

[Agschmid]

72. Figure it out.

[ibegurpard]

40. Yeah it would

And Hillary will have negative coattails.

[daleanime]

53. Psst, we not suppose to notice that......

or the fact that getting her elected will be even a tougher fight then the one Bernie will face.

[dsc]

3. He can't spend a dime without Congress's approval

that is red letter law and was, in fact, litigated 40 plus years ago when Nixon tried it (he was trying to spend less money but the principle is the same).

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Be it sounded so profound. n/t

[AgingAmerican]

6. The executive branch can do plenty.

Dealing with the congress is pointless and ceeds ground to the GOP.

[Maedhros]

57. Obama spent a tidy little sum destroying Libya in direct opposition to Congress. [n/t]

[dsc]

60. they didn't vote no

they took no position which is a massively different thing. Had they done what Parliment did, which is vote no, then there would have been no Libya. BTW I don't recall massive Congressional opposition to Libya.

[Maedhros]

61. I stand corrected. Obama just ignored them.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/how-obama-ignored-congress-and-misled-america-on-war-in-libya/262299/

Put more succinctly, going to war in Libya was a close call; there are things various folks could have said to deter him; he ran the decision through executive branch and international channels; most people told him not to do it; but if Congress came into the picture at all, it wasn't enough to merit mention in the retelling, and certainly not enough to follow the constitution and put the prospective war to a vote. The people's representatives were excluded.

Still spent the money.

[dsc]

62. yes because Congress didn't ban him from doing so, as they could have

but chose not to. That is different from what the OP is suggesting that a President could just spend money willy nilly with no authorization from Congress. We have a defense budget, he used it to bomb Libya.

[Maedhros]

65. The nice contrast between Sanders and Clinton

is that with Sanders we would have a President who is actively trying to get the things we all want - Medicare for all, expanded Social Security, fewer military adventures - rather than a President trying to convince us why we can't have them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Back to 8th grade Civics for you ...

If you think "sequester" and "executive order" can fit in a style comparison of the candidates related to governing.

[Godhumor]

7. Nice to see you back in the GDP fray

The next 9 weeks are shaping up to be pretty amusing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. LOL ... Assuming might one way to describe it ...

The term I would use would be "sad" ... as dreams will be dashed, and reality sets in ... that's usually a sad thing.

[AgingAmerican]

13. Dreams will really be dashed when Hillary loses the general

And those who sunk Sanders campaign realize they did it to themselves

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. Okay. eom

[Godhumor]

43. If His campaign sinks, it will be because he doesn't have the votes

2008 was one of the closest primaries on record. Sure didn't seem like Clinton supporters held their breath and declined to vote for Obama.

And Democrats this election, as they always do, will unify around the nominee again.

[AgingAmerican]

74. There are groups here bragging they will sink his campaign

And actively seeking to do so. When she loses the general, the GOP hellstorm will be their fault. The demise of voting rights, loss of jobs and civil rights will be entirely their own fault. They will then have to sleep in the bed they made with their selfishness. Unfortunately those whom they claim to represent will also suffer along with the rest of the country and undeservedly so.

She represents the status quo, garnerrs zero excitement,, and is unelectable.

[Godhumor]

75. So what does that say about the candidate who is down 20 to 30 points to her now?

You really can't believe that someone who can't even get the people who make up the Democratic base interested is somehow more electable, right?

And right now the predictive markets put her chance at winning the GE over every other challenger, Democratic and Republican, combined at +13%. In others words, in Hillary versus the field, she wins in a blow out.

[Armstead]

15. The reality of more of the same -- That's very inspiring

Let's just continue doing the same old things that cause the same old problems. No questions asked.

That'd be a great campaign slogan.

It is sad, but not only for those who support Sanders.

[AgingAmerican]

24. That is the political science definition of Conservatism

'Satisfied with the status quo'

[Armstead]

10. More condesention.... Love it

Yes it's certainly amusing that there are a large number of people who are care about this country, believe we need fundamental reform instead of more of the status quo, and are passionate about it.

Fucking makes me laugh out loud.

Why don't all those funny people just realize their job is to love Hillary, and dutifully and silently continue with their drone-like lives and just fulfill their assigned roles as consumer voting units?

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Capt. Super Save Bernie supporter to the rescue!

Wanting change and knowing how to affect it are two different things.

[AgingAmerican]

28. When Hillary loses the general

Who will you try to blame?
I will have zero sympathy for those who made their own bed.

[Armstead]

30. He knows how to effect it. But it requires more than continued collective laziness

Some just don't believe that the nation is capable of the adjustments that would take.

I'm not referring to "radical" change. But a raising of aspirations, and willingness -- and reasons -- to do more than sit back and let the elites continually call the shots based on motives that are not always in the best interest of the public.

[AgingAmerican]

11. Dealing with the GOP congress is pointless

Obama proved it.

[merrily]

16. Many would say the concept of the Grand Bargain Committee was unconstitutional.

[1StrongBlackMan]

22. Who are these "many" ... Are they the same ones ...

Trump references when he is making stuff up?

[merrily]

23. I'm sure you don't expect an answer to a question that disrespectful.

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. I don't expect an answer to any query of post that ...

Contain "many say."

[NCTraveler]

12. You could truly be no more wrong.

"That's how you get things done without constantly losing ground to the right."

It would do the exact opposite of what you say and anything good that would come from it would be at the whim of Presidential elections. The executive branch has been too emboldened and you want to embolden it even more with a thought process that would leave our most vulnerable in a state of even more constant uncertainty. Many things can be done by way of EO. Most can't. Claiming this is a game plan moving forward for Sanders is very dangerous.

[AgingAmerican]

17. See Obama's deals with the GOP

Where we got them to temporarily slow down destruction of the New Deal and civil rights for a month or two, in exchange for permanently fulfilling long unfulfilled GOP wet dreams.

[NCTraveler]

29. That doesn't change the point of your implications.

Hence why your argument is void of that aspect.

[AgingAmerican]

35. It shows what happens when you make deals with the right

You get screwed every time. Dealing with them is pointless. Let the courts fight it out.

[merrily]

18. Remind me when an Executive Order last affected the outcome of a Presidential election.

Came close in the 1940s, after Truman desegregated the military, but he had not one, but two, challengers from his own party, one of whom had been FDR's VP.

Absent something of that nature, most Americans have no clue when an EO has been issued, let alone what it said.

I am not saying the OP is correct. I am saying your statement is not.

[NCTraveler]

26. Where did I say it would "affect" the outcome of an election? Nt

[merrily]

32. Then I may have misunderstood your comment.

[NCTraveler]

34. Just read my post you replied to and can't figure out where your insinuation could come from.

It just isn't there.

Edit to add: I don't think your insinuation is nefarious in any way. Please don't take my comment here too negative. Thanks.

[merrily]

36. Not taking it as negative, but you may mean "inference." I didn't really insinuate anything.

I simply made a reply to your post as I understood it.

[sufrommich]

20. Seriously,I can't think of a worse possibility to hope for.

Put that "executive order" in republican hands and see how you like it.

[merrily]

21. Respectfully, I don't think we know Sanders' intentions about EOs. We do know that,

even in her most recent evolution, Hillary is to the right of Sanders, whether everyone admits it or not.

[MohRokTah]

31. Wow, talk about blatantly unconsitutional.

Article 1 of the constitution grants the power of the purse strings to the Congress. Any president who attempted to circumvent that via executive fiat would see that order struck down in court within miniutes of issuing it, then would likely face impeachment.

If this is Sanders' answer, he's a frickin' moron.

[merrily]

39. You know the OP probably isn't Sanders, right?

[MohRokTah]

46. The OP suggests this would be the course Sanders would taake.

It's up to other supporters of Sanders to debunk this.

For now, I take this as a Sanders position until shown otherwise.

[merrily]

47. So, the OP suggested it. So what? If you take it as coming from Sanders, that's ridiculous and no

one's problem but yours.

[MohRokTah]

49. Yep, and I'm spreading this as how bad a Sanders presidency would be.

Outside of DU, this gets spread to every friend I have as a real Sanders position.

[merrily]

50. As I said, ridiculous and no one's problem but yours.

Anyone who believes the OP is speaking for Sanders could not be more foolish.

[George II]

51. The OP didn't "suggest it", the OP outright said it as though it was a factual foregone conclusion:

"Hillary will make sequestration style deals aka 'pragmatism', Sanders will do it by executive order"

[merrily]

52. Mohroktah used that word. Take it up with him or her. And give me a break with these fairy tales,

that a DUer saying something means the DUer is speaking for a candidate. Frickin' waste of my time and the time of anyone who posts them.

[Metric System]

33. Sanders has never said this, so you're obviously projecting your hopes on him. Ain't gonna happen.

[AgingAmerican]

38. He won't make deals like Obama did

And you are dreaming if you believe he would.

[Metric System]

67. He definitely won't, since he will never be in Pres. Obama's position.

[MineralMan]

37. Actions by Executive Order are very limited in their scope.

No President can rule by fiat. Our Constitution makes that very, very clear. I suggest a re-reading of that document.

[AgingAmerican]

41. Signing statements

Can alter legislation that has already passed congress. Hillary supporters want a candidate who gives up before they try. It's pretty obvious they have low expectations of her.

[MineralMan]

44. You're moving the goalposts.

Signing statements are also limited in their scope as well. Go read this Wikipedia article, paying special attention to the "Legal Significance" section. Such signing statements are extra-constitutional and are limited in what they can do.

As with everything else, the President has some control of the Executive Branch, but that's it. Lacking funding, the President can do very little, as witnessed by the inability of President Obama to close the Guantanamo prison. Everything costs money and Congress is in charge of the money. No money; no action.

In point of fact, it has been Republicans who have made most use of signing statements.

[NurseJackie]

42. He's not running to be a KING. No coronation for you!

Besides ... Hillary is going to be the one who's coronated ... remember?!

[Agnosticsherbet]

45. Executive Orders can not raise funds, change taxes, create programs,

So single payer, college tuition, raise minimum wage, and his other big items can not be executive ordered into existence. Presidents do not have that power.

Only the Congress can pass legislation. For anything that must be funded, the bill must originate in the House of Representatives.

How does he do that without making deals?

Your OP doesn't make sense in light of the way our system works.

[George II]

48. How do we know that either will do what you say?

[upaloopa]

54. Bull shit

You'd like to place a dictator you agree with on the thrown wouldn't you?

[Starry Messenger]

56. I love fan fiction too!

[mwrguy]

58. "I've got a pen and I've got a phone..."

[msanthrope]

68. Youngstown v. Sawyer. Read that and get back to me. nt

[pa28]

73. I believe that's what Sanders would do and probably Hillary as well.

After all her husband advocated exactly that response back in 2011 during the Republican shutdown.

Former President Bill Clinton says that he would invoke the so-called constitutional option to raise the nation’s debt ceiling “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me” in order to prevent a default, should Congress and the President fail to achieve agreement before the August 2 deadline.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/exclusive-former-president-bill-clinton-says-he-would-use-constitutional-option-raise-debt/

That's exactly the right move but according to another thread here that means you're a "dictator who wants to force your revolution on the rest of us".