Isn't it rich that today Democrats are talking about "the rule of law" after years of lauding Obama ruling by decree?

"Obama has enforced the amnesty policy put in place by GW Bush, all while deporting nine times more illegal immigrants than 20 years ago."
Bush was not fully enforcing immigration laws, but he did allow ICE to raid many illegal alien workplaces, which Obama halted. With Obama we went from neglecting immigration enforcement by understaffing ICE to Obama actually prohibiting ICE from carrying out its duties mandated by Congress, leading to a lawsuit against the administration by ICE members. The Obama administration has actually vastly decreased deportation and lied in claiming that it increased deportation. Obama's flunkies changed what was measured in the statistic; they added to it people who were deported upon bveing intercepted at the border rather than in the interior. They deceitfully put out their stats without saying they had changed what was being measured, and the incorrigible liberal press acquiesced in this deception, to which you have fallen prey.

"As for changes made in healthcare, Obama has been challenged and found to be working within his parameters."
By whom? With only one exception, those things have not come before the Supreme Court. Obama's unilateral changes to Congress' Obamacare law are currently the subject of a federal lawsuit.

"Of course the Iran nuclear deal went to the Senate. There is ample information for this."
The only reason the Iran treaty/capitulation is going before the Senate is because Bob Corker passed a wimpy law to require that. Obama chose to violate the Constitution by pretending this agreement of monumental importance is not a teaty. It should require two-thirds approval to pass it, not two-thirds disapproval to reject it.

"Obama didn't gut work reform. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/"
Obama did indeed through HHS unilaterally repeal Congressionally-mandated work requirements for welfare. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) confirmed this (http://www.examiner.com/article/gao-confirms-obama-changed-welfare-to-work-rules) when they said in bureaucratic language : "whether an Information Memorandum issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on July 12, 2012 concerning the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program constitutes a rule for the purposes of the Congressional Review Act (CRA).[1] The CRA is intended to keep Congress informed of the rulemaking activities of federal agencies and provides that before a rule can take effect, the agency must submit the rule to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General.[2] For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the July 12, 2012 Information Memorandum is a rule under the CRA. Therefore, it must be submitted to Congress and the Comptroller General before taking effect." (http://www.gao.gov/products/B-323772#mt=e-report) For a full articulation of the illegality of the move, see http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/welfare-reforms-work-requirements-cannot-be-waived The HHS memorandum at issue was replete with nearly impenetrable bureaucratic language. It notably called for :
"Projects that demonstrate attainment of superior employment outcomes if a state is held accountable for negotiated employment outcomes in lieu of participation rate requirements.
Projects under which a state would count individuals in TANF-subsidized jobs but no longer receiving TANF assistance toward participation rates for a specified period of time in conjunction with an evaluation of the effectiveness of a subsidized jobs strategy.
Projects that improve collaboration with the workforce and/or post-secondary education systems to test multi-year career pathways models for TANF recipients that combine learning and work.
Projects that demonstrate strategies for more effectively serving individuals with disabilities, along with an alternative approach to measuring participation and outcomes for individuals with disabilities.
Projects that test the impact of a comprehensive universal engagement system in lieu of certain participation rate requirements.
Projects that test systematically extending the period in which vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs count toward participation rates, either generally or for particular subgroups, such as an extended training period for those pursuing a credential. The purpose of such a waiver would be to determine through evaluation whether a program that allows for longer periods in certain activities improves employment outcomes."
These things went against the very carefully calibrated requirements of Congress' welfare reform legislation.

Bush had no limits to his power! He was the Old Testament God! He intimidated Congress into
invading Iraq over nonexistent WMDs. He spent trillions of dollars on two wars we could never win, all so war corporations like Halliburton could get even richer. Dubya was the worst president we have had, we will never recover from what he did to us, and Obama has done nothing to change that, and neither will the next president.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Bush was the biggest piece of shirt the US has ever every seen. Name one thing he ever touched without fucking it up. You're just pissed because you voted for him. Twice.

The CIA told Bush that Saddam had WMDs. The major intelligence agencies of the world agreed. Now tell me the slightest evidence you have that Bush knew the CIA and its sister intelligence agencies were wrong. By the way, one of Saddam's generals wrote a book in which he stated that Saddam shipped the WMDs to Syria before the war. And why do you blame the Afghanistan war on Bush rather than on 9-11, bin Laden, and his Taliban protectors?

I know darn well I'm talking about, and you don't, witnessed by you're being "pretty sure" rather than knowing the facts.

Awww...."waaaa waaaa". So if he's broken the law so much, why hasn't anybody stopped him? He's got plenty of opposition. Why have none of them been able to call him out on it and hold in accountable in a court of law or by congressional authority? Is it because they don't have a real legal basis to do so? Or is the GOP just a bog full of incompetent, spineless, inbred, nitwit, demagogues that somehow manage to convince constituents to keep electing their worthless carcasses despite not being able to hold Obama accountable, not succeeding at repealing and replacing the ACA, gay marriage is legal, there is no freakin' wall (DC has had decades to work on that, hasn't happened), never delivered on a 20 weak abortion ban, won't lift a finger against ISIS, still no immigration reform (and that one was bipartisan even!). So which is it? No legal basis, or just a worthless GOP? Personally I don't think they're incompetent, I think they just lie a lot, particularly to their constituents. They want to seem like they're fighting for something, against someone, even if they're not. It's all show, but very little substance. After all, they did APPROVE fast-track authority for Obama on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. XD They gave him even more power. Majority in both chambers, and they gave Obama more power. They don't really oppose him, that's just what they say to make people who aren't paying close attention vote for them, because they don't think their constituents are smart enough to figure it out. And who's the in spotlight now? Donald Trump, yankee real estate investor with a New York accent, former democrat, friend of the Clintons, and still surprisingly on the left on some issues. Surged to the top of the polls did he? I know politically conservative people that I quite like, but as a whole, it seems like if they ever want to win again, not just an election, but a policy win, then conservative voters as a whole are going to have to open their eyes. They're being lied to for the gain of their "leaders".

There is some truth in what you say. The GOP leaders undoubtedly genuinely deplore Obama's departures from constitutional governance, but they misled their followers by pretending that they had the spine to stand up to the liberal press and establishment and do something about it when they didn't have the spine. Conservative voters have opened their eyes: that's why they're rejecting Jeb Bush (who offers more of the same as McConnell and Boehnert) and more than half are supporting candidates from outside politics.
"So if he's broken the law so much, why hasn't anybody stopped him? He's got plenty of opposition. Why have none of them been able to call him out on it and hold in accountable in a court of law or by congressional authority? Is it because they don't have a real legal basis to do so?" They have plenty of legal basis for it, but it is very difficult in an environment in which the rule of law is under vigorous assault from both the executive and judicial branches. There are multiple court cases in play, but you know how slow US federal courts are. As for congressional authority, weakness by GOP congressmen and the complete end of the long tradition of Democratic congressmen valuing Congress' constitutional prerogatives over partisan concerns have combined to make Congress impotent.

Tell me more about what you have heard about drug use by Hillary.

Indeed, he probably doesn't do many things without getting ornery Michelle's prior permission.

America really is a laughingstock now.

Bush was far better, not far worse. He acknowledged limits to his power. He went into Iraq only after Congress voted for it.