3 ms·
Looking at total executive orders is misleading (and dishonest), EO’s historically were often used for very inconsequential things, like declaring some nation a
by vxNsr 3y ago
Looking at total executive orders is misleading (and dishonest), EO’s historically were often used for very inconsequential things, like declaring some nation a friend or thanking someone for something. Without looking at the actual order it’s hard to know the impact and any given EO. Please try to argue in good faith.
- kasey_junk 3y agoYou literally said Obama started the problem with executive orders. How would you judge these in a way that is impartial? For instance George W Bush signed an executive order establishing the homeland security department. He established Afghanistan as a combat zone via executive order. He declared war on the Taliban via EO. He changed classification rules and military pay based on EO. He removed Congressionally approved union protections via executive order. What precedent was it you think Obama set?