If you were elected as President...

[Adelaide]

I'm just curious; if you were elected as President of the United States, what is the first action you'd take in terms of reversing/revoking existing legislation, (ex. Obama reversing Bush's funding policy on embryonic stem cell research) or creating legislation through executive orders/power?

[Matty]

Well, obama's executives are not legislation. So, the first thing I would do is annul all of his executive orders.

[donttread]

I'm just curious; if you were elected as President of the United States, what is the first action you'd take in terms of reversing/revoking existing legislation, (ex. Obama reversing Bush's funding policy on embryonic stem cell research) or creating legislation through executive orders/power?

To the extent I could do so I would set about limiting federal power in every way possible.

[Captain Obvious]

Go golfing

[PolWatch]

hmm...don't know if its allowed, but: Institute line-item veto. Revoke/repeal all foreign aid, corp welfare & tax exempt status. Dissolve the IRS & restructure. Dissolve HEW & restructure. Lock members of both Houses in and tell them they can't leave until they start addressing the problems of the nation.

[Mainecoons]

I wouldn't want the job. The system is broken beyond repair. It will need to be reformed from outside.

You don't really think anyone who is elected could or would cut the Federal government by the needed 40 percent or so and return to following the Constitution do you?

You don't really think that the gross corruption of the system by money can be cured by the system itself do you?

I think the country needs to be broken up into several nations in a loose confederation and D.C. bulldozed.

[Polecat]

Push the button.

[birddog]

Seal the borders with fences and deadly force. In addition to that, get rid of Obama's illegal EOs.

[Bob]

I'm just curious; if you were elected as President of the United States, what is the first action you'd take in terms of reversing/revoking existing legislation, (ex. Obama reversing Bush's funding policy on embryonic stem cell research) or creating legislation through executive orders/power?

Funny how well that worked out. To date, embryonic cell research has produced exactly nothing worth having.

[Bob]

hmm...don't know if its allowed, but: Institute line-item veto. Revoke/repeal all foreign aid, corp welfare & tax exempt status. Dissolve the IRS & restructure. Dissolve HEW & restructure. Lock members of both Houses in and tell them they can't leave until they start addressing the problems of the nation.

It is not legal.

[PolWatch]

It is not legal.

if I were elected president...anything is possible

[Captain Obvious]

Push the button.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfj0sRiEqx4

[PolWatch]

[QUOTE=Bob;718986]Funny how well that worked out. To date, embryonic cell research has produced exactly nothing worth having.[/QU

age related macular degeneration is showing promise...among other things....blocks to the research has slowed things down.

[Stoney]

I've often thought that it would be fun if all legislation automatically expired in five years unless renewed by congress and the president. That would keep congress so busy they wouldn't have time to be stupid.

[Chris]

I'd issue an executive order rescinding every previous executive order. Blind faith, call it. :-P

[Peter1469]

I wouldn't worry about what has been. I would advocate for us to return to our better nature. We created a government that was timeless. A city on the hill for others to follow.

I would engage the people to push the Congress to pass legislation that benefits Americans. I would encourage governors to take action at the state level to address local issues.

I would tell our enemies abroad that they will be countered with all means at our disposal.

I would also tell out allies that we are not their defense unless they pay for it.

Tariffs on unfair trade. Bring manufacturing back home. I would act to make the US great again.

[Captain Obvious]

I wouldn't worry about what has been. I would advocate for us to return to our better nature. We created a government that was timeless. A city on the hill for others to follow.

I would engage the people to push the Congress to pass legislation that benefits Americans. I would encourage governors to take action at the state level to address local issues.

I would tell our enemies abroad that they will be countered with all means at our disposal.

I would also tell out allies that we are not their defense unless they pay for it.

Tariffs on unfair trade. Bring manufacturing back home. I would act to make the US great again.

And Congress would stifle you.

Hispanic welfare queen want's a free phone, you're ideas are meaningless.

[Peter1469]

True. My only recourse would be to appeal to citizens directly.

In our system of separation of powers that is how leaders lead.

[Stoney]

I wouldn't worry about what has been. I would advocate for us to return to our better nature. We created a government that was timeless. A city on the hill for others to follow.

I would engage the people to push the Congress to pass legislation that benefits Americans. I would encourage governors to take action at the state level to address local issues.

I would tell our enemies abroad that they will be countered with all means at our disposal.

I would also tell out allies that we are not their defense unless they pay for it.

Tariffs on unfair trade. Bring manufacturing back home. I would act to make the US great again.

Ah yes...do for the people.

[Peter1469]

Ah yes...do for the people.

You wouldn't do it for the people?

[darroll]

No promises....................... Actions that are legal.

[Stoney]

You wouldn't do it for the people?

I can't think of anything authorized by the Constitution for the federal government that would fall in that category unless you consider national security. There might be something else. But at least most of the time that phrase is used by politicians it means do for some at the expense of others.

So no. I would fulfill the requirements of national security, for the people, and not a great deal more.

[Peter1469]

I think you are confused.

I only advocated talking. Not enacting EOs .... Pay attention next time.



I can't think of anything authorized by the Constitution for the federal government that would fall in that category unless you consider national security. There might be something else. But at least most of the time that phrase is used by politicians it means do for some at the expense of others.

So no. I would fulfill the requirements of national security, for the people, and not a great deal more.

[Stoney]

I think you are confused.

I only advocated talking. Not enacting EOs .... Pay attention next time.

Of course I have no idea what you're talking about and obviously neither do you. It's Saturday night. Are we partying?

[Peter1469]

Of course I have no idea what you're talking about and obviously neither do you. It's Saturday night. Are we partying?

Not me. No parties for me. :sad:

[donttread]

Since EO's seem to be able to circumvent the Constitution, I would write one to repeal the 16th