President Donald Trump threatened to veto every piece of legislation put forward during the second half of his administration if Democrats flip control of the House or Senate during next month’s midterm elections.
“Well, I think the Republicans are going to win. But if there was, you call it gridlock, what happens is I veto everything,” Trump told reporters Friday morning while speaking on the South Lawn. “And then the Democrats come and they want to make a deal. So we’ll work it out.”
Historical precedent and polling data suggest Democrats are on the cusp of flipping at least the House next month and possibly the Senate, due to public frustration over the Iran war and high costs of living.
So, they will override his veto
Demonizing bills only because they are introduced by Democrats, rather than seeking unity, compromise and common interests, sounds like bad faith to me.
“And then the Democrats come and they want to make a deal. So we’ll work it out.”
He weaseled his words right at the end of the second sentence, just enough to not be prosecuted for (much less held to…) what he said in the first.
And to think the barest majority of Americans voted for this…
.
… twice …
Majority? Once.
If dems flip the house, Trump won’t get the chance: Impeach his ass.
Unfortunately it would still take Republican support. The house can vote to impeach, the senate votes to convict and remove. Even if the Democrats win every seanate race they will not have enough votes to remove Trump. Not even enough to overturn a veto.
uh THEN you need 2/3 of the senate. Basically not going to happen ever.
Cool. Threaten to shut down government while running for re-election.
USA needs to take POTUS behind the shed and dock his balls. The system gives POTUS far too much power.
The system givesThe supreme court and congress gave POTUS far too much power.POTUS was co-equal with checks and balances but the Heritage Foundation’s betrayal of democracy has been focused on concentrating power in the executive so they can make Gilead.
That’s the system. Why the fuck is SCOTUS a job for life.
HahahhahahhhHh hoooo heeehahahHHa
Get this shit!
Hahahahahahhaha
It’s
it’s
So they won’t be influenced by politics.
They won’t have enough majority to override and will get blamed for not fixing everything and in '28 they choose maga again. I hope I’m wrong tho.
Not how it went down in 2006 & 2008. Bush just kept right on sinking and sinking. It could happen that way again. We don’t know.
If I were to guess, I doubt Trump will be more popular in 2028 than he is now. Voters tend to blame the president’s party for shit, not the party that holds congress. I think there’s a solid chance of a Democratic trifecta in 2029, and possibly a supermajority in the senate.
That’s why this has to be blue tsunami or the next two years will be down the drain as far as passing anything.
They still need to make the effort just so that people will see Trump vetoing the “don’t rape children act” every month.
But I fear they’ll just use the lack of veto override as an excuse to stay on vacation for another two years.
the “don’t rape children act” every month.
Good idea! 😁😊
and when Trump vetoes it, let’s see if the Trumplican caucus will vote against an override.
Part of me actually wonders if he is fucking up badly enough that there are enough republicans willing to vote to remove at this point. Not because of any moral issues but because his bullshit is actually bothering rich people at this point and the MAGA cult has significantly less influence now so they are less worried about being removed via primary.
That’s the problem with Republicans. Even when they disagree, they always vote in unison. It’s why we have the ratchet effect. Republicans always vote together regardless of their own personal views and Democrats vote with their feelings. When Republicans are in power, they move right quickly without dissent. When Democrats are in power, they cannot agree on how to vote and it causes gridlock.
I for one can’t wait to see how democrats will snatch failure from the jaws of victory on this one. Can they impeach him 2 more times with zero consequences?
When has impeachment ever had consequences? It’s bullshit.
Seeing as they’ve already helped the Republicans vote down impeachment this year and not just a onsie, twosie thing either. I mean I think it’s a foregone conclusion that the centrist assholes in leadership aren’t going to do fuck all.
I’m fully expecting these jackasses to be like all of the other centrist apologists on social media and fall back on the excuse of “Well Republicans in the Senate won’t vote for it so it’s better to not try to hold Trump accountable at all.” weak sauce bullshit. We all know that when the going gets tough, the centrists don’t do shit.
Even when the opposite party is in power, they never follow up on impeachment “to heal the divide”.
Fucking Kang or Kudos.
They should slam him first do really give it to him
You need 2/3rds of the senate to convict so if the best case scenario happens (something like a 54 dem - 46 gop split) Trump still won’t get convicted becuase dems still need a dozen gop members to vote with them. So yeah Trump won’t get convicted. It’s not really dems fault; the rules are dumb as fuck.
Impeachment without knowing they have at least 60 votes before the trial starts is definitely a waste. There is some value in having the trial and making Republicans be on record as supporting trump. You do need to know it won’t be a straight party line vote though, or any benefits are mostly wasted.
Sounds like a quick way to get impeached(again) with the followup removal this time… Because Trump doesn’t have the decency to step down.
Well, this wouldn’t be impeachable, it’s not that far off from business as usual.
Back during Obama’s presidency, the GOP in fact relied upon that reality. They passed a repeal of ACA multiple times to pander to their campaign promises of getting rid of it. Then as soon as they held the presidency, suddenly they couldn’t pass that repeal.
There’s a roughly 20% swing on polling if it’s called the “Affordable Care Act” compared to “Obamacare”. It’s one of the most underappreciated bills in American history; the GOP doesn’t want to become the dog that caught the very popular car.
Delusion, cons politician would never, everything about their behavior suggests they would continue backing him.
Maybe but their primary motive is keeping their power. If there’s a big loss for Republicans because of Trump it might cause them to decide that Trump is a liability.
I’ll settle for nothing happening the next couple years. I had thought it was bad before with how dysfunctional Congress has been, then it got on its knees for this wannabe king to walk all over it and things are so much worse than I ever thought possible.
Nothing happening would be a huge step forward
Yeah I was going to get worked up at this until I read your comment.
As much as it sucks to have a Pause on anything happening in the federal government for two years, it’s better than Everything Happening And It’s All Bad.
Me too especially given that he can launch nukes and kill every mammal on the planet
The man rules by EOs though.
Congress can assert its authority over executive orders that are illegal. Hopefully they will start
Anything done by EO can be just as easily undone by EO. That’s preferrable to Congress passing horrible legislation on the slimmest of 50 vote majorities
True. But there are a lot of EOs to be undone.
First EO of the next president “All Trump EOs are null and void”
470+ by trump, 72 from his first term were revoked.
That’s fine but the hope is that he’ll never get anything past ever again. And maybe they can defund his big beautiful bill. And one would hope they wouldn’t be bowing to their israeli taskmasters but let’s not put the card before the horse.
Probably a typo, but just in case: cart, not card. ;)
deleted by creator
So, they will override his veto
Flipping both won’t override a veto. They need 2/3.
So, that’s not going to work out.
Recall that Democrats couldn’t muster a majority to pass higher minimum wage with house and senate.
(I mean, they could have, of course, they just don’t)
That’s cause they’re controlled opposition
Do you mean the bill they introduced this year? How do you suppose they could get a majority on that?
One would assume they’re talking about the bill the Democrats introduced and then failed to pass when they controlled both houses of congress under democratic president Joe Biden.
Well, since they didn’t control the Senate and only had marginal control over the House, that would be a weird assumption to be honest.
They did control the Senate: 50 members (48 Democrats and 2 Independents that caucus with them), plus the Democratic VP to break ties. But they couldn’t pass anything Biden ran on because a couple of, “moderates,” wouldn’t play ball. Just like, even though the Democrats were winning on the shutdown last year, eight, “moderates,” decided to cave. The Democrats will always find a few Democrats to be the villains of the week so that the party can betray their voters to please their donors.
That’s because they didn’t control the senate, they barely had nominal parity which wasn’t even a true one because there is like you said always be several right wing people from right wing states that are nominally Democrats but don’t support the party consensus. In order to actually control it they need a bigger majority. This conspiracy theory that they do it on purpose is founded on the same principal that alexes joanses of the world are always blabbering about, talking about a shadow government is always fun, but it’s counterproductive.
First of all, again, they did control the Senate; Schumer was Majority leader. If you want to argue that they didn’t have a strong enough Majority to govern, fine, but that’s not what, “control of the Senate,” means. Second of all, the last time the Democrats did have a strong Majority in the senate (60 seats at the start of Obama’s term), they let the public option get stripped out of the Affordable Care Act and abandoned homeowner mortgage bailouts because they preferred to let one Senator (Joe Lieberman) hijack the negotiations. Either the leadership of this party isn’t interested in advancing a progressive agenda or their the most spineless, incompetent negotiators in history.
Can’t veto an impeachment Donny boy.
Impeachment requires 2/3 of Senate, making it vetoe’d unless we can swing some Rs.
Don’t be so sure. I wouldn’t be surprised if the supreme court said he could.
Something Something its against the law but since he did it in his official capacity as president its allowed.
If you want to read the article but are blocked by Cloudflare, there is an copy on Wayback machine.
Other words for those who are searching: bypass paywall, archive copy.
Of course he will. Dems should expect nothing less. So pass great legislation, let him veto it, and run against that in 2028.
in the meantime, use the time to investigate EVERYBODY. Put their crimes and arrogance on record, and expose the entire MAGA party for the treasonous, criminal, pedophiles they ALL are.
Exactly. This is expected and just makes them look worse for 2 years while he rots and has his power checked
Then we can hopefully win a super majority in 2028 and actually have progressives and claw back dignity
Its going to take decades to fix what he has broken and respect around the world. Hopefully we can bust up the mega corps and restore some independence to news and laws around news as well so we never end up in this propaganda hellscape again.
This is kinda how it goes every mid-term election. I’m used to it by now. The way the US government is designed is hostile to progress and dragging its feet the whole time. The few moments when any party gets multiple seats of power, they sprint as far and fast as they can before the gears get clogged again.
You gotta just play the hand you’re dealt. If democrats win a majority, but not a supermajority, their job is to at least stop things from getting worse for a while.
The few moments when any party gets multiple seats of power, they sprint as far and fast as they can before the gears get clogged again.
Republicans, certainly.
But I was around for the Obama first term. He was terminally West Wing brained. Fully convinced he was going to get 70+ Senators on every vote, because Lindsey Graham and John McCain and Susan Collins were his close friends.
Fucking chump.
You gotta just play the hand you’re dealt. If democrats win a majority, but not a supermajority, their job is to at least stop things from getting worse for a while.
I predict that Congress will find it doesn’t have a majority to pass any useful legislation domestically.
But what they will have is an overwhelming Pro-Israel majority. Also, just enough votes to ban transgender athletes from women’s sports at a national level
It’s just theatre.
Obama was a community organizer, a Constitutional scholar, and holds a law degree from Harvard. It was his belief in the American system that gained him worldwide admiration and respect. We can’t be protesting corruption while also criticizing the incorruptible.
“The incorruptible.” You mean the guy who said he’d end mass surveillance and protect whistleblowers and then once in power he continued doing it secretly and hunted Snowden to the ends of the earth when he revealed his crimes?
It’s also interesting, because historically, the figure nicknamed “The Incorruptible” was Robespierre, who is generally remembered more for the tens of thousands of deaths he caused than his inability to be bribed. But if you look at how many people died because Obama chose to prolong the hopeless war of aggression in Afghanistan, when as commander-in-chief he had the sole power to end it, he’s got Robespierre’s terror beat easily.
Obama should be remembered as the guy who normalized everything Bush did and prevented any real chance of ever restoring the country to normalcy. At least with Bush, he wasn’t quite as good at marketing all the things he was doing, and there was some token opposition, both domestically and internationally. But Obama marketed imperialism and the surveillance state so well he had people thinking he was a progressive. Now, anyone actually calling for us to just return to the same level of civil rights we had in the 90’s is a crazy extremist, because Obama was so effective in defining the bounds of the US “left.”
All three of these monikers can be used to describe Alan Dershowitz.
i think its more to put a break on ww3 or being an imprisoned state at this point. i mean you can call it stuck from ‘making progress’. some of us are calling it pulling the emergency break before you hit the event horizon after going careening into a black hole.
maybe wait a term before you can expect it to start going in reverse after it has slowed momentum going into self destruction.
i mean whilst were using physics terms and all that. context and trajectory are also factors you cannot ignore if you’re gonna use such metaphors here.
What did McConnell say? His goal was to make Obama a lame duck president. Here we go.
For Trump I’d say “lame dick” president.
It is hostile to any progress which is perceived as the left. Anything the corporates want, or the right wants, gets breezed through. See the last two years, the Obamacare vs. Public option debate. The option to the right always wins.
But don’t you dare raise that minimum wage by $0.25. Some Dem with go thumbs down.
