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
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?
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.
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.
When has impeachment ever had consequences? It’s bullshit.
They should slam him first do really give it to him
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…
.
deleted by creator
Majority? Once.
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.
The man rules by EOs though.
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.
470+ by trump, 72 from his first term were revoked.
First EO of the next president “All Trump EOs are null and void”
Congress can assert its authority over executive orders that are illegal. Hopefully they will start
Me too especially given that he can launch nukes and kill every mammal on the planet
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
but that’s not what, “control of the Senate,” means
I would say, that the ability to intact a law, any law, is what controlling the senate means. If you want to argue about the merit of the specific definition of 50+, then I see your point, but I don’t see the merit of that definition.
The question is “why does Democratic party doesn’t make many laws”, and part of the answer for it is that they almost never are in power, and when they have it, it’s for a short period of time, and they only able to do one thing if any, like with Obama and ACA example.
“And then the [other party] comes and they want to make a deal. So we’ll work it out.”
Uh, yeah. That’s how it usually works.
Why do I get the impression that his idea of “making a deal” involves paying him personally?
Well if you kick a dog 99 times when you walk in the door it’s probably expecting to get kicked the next time
Doesn’t stop the majority of people speaking bloody murder when the dog does bite back. “OMG what could cause the dog to act like this?!”
Because it usually does?
*always
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.
Dems will likely do well, but I don’t think they’ll get 2/3rd majority and republicans for sure aren’t gonna help Dems, they’re too far gone.
And idiotic low-info voters (many of them are self-styled “independents”, LOL) will then blame the Democrats for not doing enough and send in Republicans again.
They’re not low info voters. They’re generally just closeted far right whingers.
Who will wholeheartedly accept progressive policies… unless you tell them that this is what leftists want…
That Venn diagram is almost a circle
That’s definitely a high likelihood, but there’s also a high likelihood that republicans outright refuse to seat Dems elected, Trump refuses to leave and claims he won a third term (deserves one), and the courts will let it all happen, resulting in arrests of Dems and the loss of the democratic system as we know it. That means a power vacuum will emerge inevitably, whatever the end result of this coup, and power vacuums almost always end up with a more authoritarian leader in place and less democracy.
If this or anything close to it happens, the only recourse is violence.
Maybe it’s time for some of them to leave the US.
That’s the power vacuum part. The emerging authoritarian is whoever manages to put down the violence typically
There’s no real economic incentive for opposition.
It’s not the promise of profits that usually takes it there, it’s typically hunger, desperation, and giving up on waiting for the system to step in and do something to change what’s obviously led to the stagnant and corrosive economic system that’s leading many to that hunger and desperation.
“Once it’s too late, our only recourse is the thing we could have done all along to stop it from getting to this point.”
Yeah, it’s wild how unwilling people are to go die for a cause, huh?
Especially when they spent the last century dining out on a national myth of “give me liberty or give me death” and being belligerent fucking assholes about “freedom,” crowing about how they’re the BEST IN THE WORLD at defending it, insisted it was necessary to let children die in school shootings all the fucking time in order to be able to handle exactly this scenario- and also everyone else is a bunch of weaklings who only exist because Americans put their lives on the line to defend democracy, and fuck everyone else for even questioning it.
Yeah. That’s wild.
Just because our grandparents held onto a mantra doesn’t mean we do. Expecting us to be enthusiastic about dying for an ideology that we never agreed with in the first place is just as wild a take. I don’t personally know anyone who believed any of that garbage they fed us in elementary school beyond… well, elementary school. It pretty quickly became clear that it’s all propaganda. The folks who didn’t recognize that are the same ones who’re okay with the current status quo.
That’s just unrealistic. In what world would the courts strike down Trump’s attempts to end birthright citizenship, but give him an unconstitutional 3rd term?
It makes no sense looking at the court’s record. They do pretty often disagree with Trump and it pisses him off
I feel like most voters with low civic knowledge assume the president does everything. You know, the “Biden made inflation happen” types.
Dems will likely do well, but I don’t think they’ll get 2/3rd majority and republicans for sure aren’t gonna help Dems, they’re too far gone.
Every progressive policy that passes the House and Senate but gets vetoed by trump becomes a reason to vote for a Democratic President in 2028. Trump would almost be doing the Democrats a favor if he vetoed everything. Bluedog Democrats in Congress could vote for all kinds of progressive things with the knowledge they won’t pass into law. They’d be able to score all the political points with their constituency without suffering any fallout from their corporate donors. Imagine if, in the next 2 years, Democrats in Congress pass:
- Universal Healthcare
- Federal Minimum wage increase
- Cost ceilings on residential electric bills
- Slashed defense budget
- Increase in Social Security trust fund
- Resolution ending military actions
- Epstein file transparency laws
All of these trump would veto, of course, but that leaves the GOP significantly worse off in the next election.
That seems to be dependent on a dramatic misconception of how American politics works.
It seems that only a very small demographic are observing this type of information, and I presume they’re all dem voters anyway.
Everyone will ignore all of this and vote Republican because of the price of eggs or something.
That seems to be dependent on a dramatic misconception of how American politics works.
Is it? This coming midterm election’s prime issue is affordability.
It seems that only a very small demographic are observing this type of information
Most voters are paying attention to affordability issues. Increasing American incomes, lowering medical costs, controlling residential electricity costs, stopping the stupid war in Iran, all speak to affordability.
The type to do that are also the type to blame the sitting president and will vote against the president’s party.
Basically if eggs are expensive come 2028 those people will blame the president and therefore the Republicans
democrats would have to win 20 seats currently held by Republicans as well as hold all their current seats. mathematically, this is possible, there are currently 22 Republican seats contested this election. current polling, however, shows the likely outcome is democrats get +3 seats.
sweep the senate races–all of them, including ones that are basically ‘gimmies’ for magats…
and then you’d also need to have the flaky ones with a (d) by their names on your side, and that is not even remotely a ‘sure thing’.
that’s just for the senate super-majority…
with projections saying a very slim majority being possible–perhaps even ‘probable’… democrats would have to over-perform in the house races like never before seen to get up to that two-thirds advantage there.
and all that has to be accomplished despite all the shit magats are doing to undermine the vote.
With a simple majority they could decide to do away with the filibuster
that’s not the problem if dipshit vetoes everything… it would be the lack of votes in both chambers needed to override one.
deleted by creator
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.
A very clear statement that he values petty party politics more than leadership of the nation.
The un-patriot president. Anti-citizen one.
His entire presidency has been a very clear statement of his values.
His entire life has been, honestly.
His value of raping children?
The first in a long line of vice-ious values, each more heinous than the last.
And not paying workers.
And everyone already knew all the sordid details. And the “party of faith and values” still voted for him.
Lack of values more like
He doesn’t care about politics, he’s just doing whatever he wants and people are actioning on it. It’s as simple as it can be.
Can’t veto an impeachment Donny boy.
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.
Impeachment requires 2/3 of Senate, making it vetoe’d unless we can swing some Rs.
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. ;)
So, they will override his veto
I will be giddy if Dems win enough seats to have the 2/3 of both house and senate it takes to do so.
If that happens and sticks (and he is removed from the presidency), come back to this comment and I will send you $1,000. No joke.
I’m not worried. But I promise I will honour this.
Sounds like a deal! 🙂
There’s a negative chance of this happening. So most likely you owe him 1,000. I don’t know how that’s possible but I’m certain of it.
Dems would have to win all but two of the thirty-three 2026 Senate races to reach 67 votes (including independents). I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Assuming no Republicans cross the aisle. That’s a fairly reasonable assumption today because the Republican party has been purged of anyone who would be willing to cross Trump.
But I suspect that assumption might not remain so valid if we were to see the kind of blue tsunami it would take to get anywhere near 2/3 of the Senate. Even if you only had 64 seats instead of 67, that still means almost every state went blue, including most of the deep red ones. Any politician with basic survival instincts is going to recognize that tying themselves to the lame duck president that has practically destroyed their party is not going to be a good long term strategy.
It’s not much more plausible a scenario than one where Dems win a full supermajority, but if it were to happen, I would be shocked if every single Republican chose to go down with the ship.
54 seats is the current upper bound of projections for the Democrats in the Senate, let alone 67. Even the moderately Republican-favoring Senate races of South Carolina, Florida, and Nebraska additionally all going blue—currently unlikely—would only take it to 57.
Perhaps enough to prevent a filibuster on contentious issues with enough bipartisan support, but not enough to overturn a veto in most cases.
you also need the super-majority in the house for veto overrides.
it’s actually ‘easier’ to impeach and convict a president than it is to override one of their vetoes.
Right, I wasn’t saying this was a realistic scenario. Just saying that the minimum number of seats they would have to have is not necessarily the same as the number of votes.
all of the senators are so old that I bet a lot of them don’t give a shit about long term strategy
Being older than dirt doesn’t seem to stop them from trying to get reelected.
They get a 2/3 majority but it depends on John Fetterman. A finger on the monkey’s paw curls …
my bet is that democrats pick up +3 seats and fetterman decides to either caucus with the Republicans or at minimum threaten to spoil every vote.
There aren’t even enough open seats for them to win that many.
If they do that, don’t they then also have enough power to impeach?
The key part to impeachment is the vote to convict. That’s where his prior impeachments failed. In my fantasy where they had 2/3 of both houses they could do it, sure, but my comment was kinda joking - I’m not sure there are enough seats up for election in this cycle for them to get to that point even if they won everything.
He’s been impeached three times already. It doesn’t carry any weight anymore.
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.
