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
Won’t be necessary, dems won’t get anything done because the parliamentarian.
Can you expand on this more, or provide a source? I tried to look it up but I still don’t quite understand what role this plays.
Congress is broken in its current state, so nothing gets passed anymore except budget and appropriations. So what a Party will do is include things that they want in the budget bill that has to be passed every year or the government shuts down. They’ll hem and haw and fight anything they don’t like being added to the budget but that’s just the only way to do anything without either having a 2/3 majority or going with the “Nuclear option” of eliminating the filibuster.
So budgets are kind of like the loophole that both parties use to get anything they want passed. What the Parliamentarian can do (and has in the past but just the Dems really, because the Republican parliamentarian will rubber stamp anything the party wants) is decide that something is out of scope of the budget and therefore cannot be included. The only things they are supposed to include are things relating to the budget itself. If the party does not like the parliamentarians decision they can just replace them and get someone who does, but the Dems don’t really play hardball like that.
Susie Wiles has pushed back, occasionally, but IIRC, was mostly ignored?
In the Senate there are a bunch of rules around what can be passed without being subject to a filibuster (effectively what can be passed with >50 votes rather than >60). The parliamentarian is basically a referee who decides which bills (and parts of bills) these rules apply to, and is appointed (not a senator).
A common case is that the budget cannot be filibustered, so senators try to put stuff into the budget bill to get it through, and then the parliamentarian says “no, that’s not a budget item”.
None of these rules are legally binding, so some get upset when Democrats abide by them.
For additional context the current parliamentarian is Elizabeth MacDonough , appointed by Harry Reid (D) in 2012.
But that’s specifically referencing the Byrd rule right? Does it ever apply to more than the budget?
The parliamentarian does handle a lot more than just budget reconciliation (e.g. who gets to speak when), but I’m not aware of any recent controversy besides that.
I think “the parliamentarian” is sometimes used as a synecdoche (or in ignorance) for Democrats’ unwillingness to break senate procedure – or the law – in general.
Got it, it’s the surrogate for Corpo Dem inaction. Thanks for all the information, genuinely appreciate it.
Not just Democrat.
They’re talking about Chuck Schumer. You can read plenty of articles about his anti-American politics. There’s literally a quote from him saying “My job is to make the American public love Israel” or something similar. He is constantly putting down Democrats that are winning elections with popular policies because he hates progress. He’s also the one that caved on the government shutdown and forced through funding for ICE thugs to indescriminately murder people.
They are not. The majority leader is not the parliamentarian.
Is Chuck Schumer the parliamentarian?
Edit: Just to be clear. I know Chuck Schumer is a ghoul and is very close to the same as a GOP member, but I’m not sure what relationship you’re drawing between the parliamentarian and him?
He’s the minority leader currently because the Dems don’t control the senate. After the election if the Dems take control, he would be.
He “might” be the Majority leader. Are you saying he’ll prevent any real progress by being the Majority leader?
Yes. He has explicitly stated that in interviews.
This has brought me no closer to understanding the parliamentarian, but I appreciate your replies.
How many are needed to officially boot the diarrhea colored convicted criminal?
Assuming all seats are filled and are present, 218 in the House to impeach, 67 in the Senate to convict and remove.
And that would just install J.D. Vance for a '28 run.
hell, if they have that many votes, they could immediately impeach and remove Vance too, and then whoever House Dems pick to be Speaker becomes president. obviously not gonna happen, but technically possible
Yeah, last i checked on 270 to win, Dems would need to win some VERY improbable Senate races to pull off the 67 needed to convict and remove both. Possible, just improbable.
If they don’t reach the 67 needed, they need to save any impeachment hearings because people are voting based on economy and having impeachment hearings will come off as out of touch, like the last time.
Instead they should focus on investigating and releasing the Epstein files, as there seems to be bipartisan support for that, and once fully released, test public sentiment on impeachment. That may be the only way to get enough votes, but the end result would be a Vance presidency, unless they can somehow tie him to it as well, which is unlikely.
I’m sure Epstein owned a lot of couches…
JD would crash and burn. He has no cachet in the magat minds.
the couch-lover has to go first, immediately followed by the spray-tanned dipshit.
and the safeguard previously-installed to prevent that particular chain-of-events, is mike johnson.
in the next session, it’ll probably be… ::gags:: jeffries. or so much in-fighting for the post that it’ll make the current magat house leadership look sane and they never get to actually voting on any impeachment charges.
We should be so lucky
Way more than they will ever get, unfortunately
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.
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.
Aww shucks, guess I’ll vote Republican then to keep the big boy in the white house from having a meltdown. Sike, I am not even murrican, but if I was I would be voting for whatever is most likely to give him an aneurysm.
Psych
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.
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.
Who cares? At best you’ll get nothing done. That is better than getting bad things done IMO.
And in the next presidential election you can run on Trump getting nothing done in his last years.
And Trump will win again.
I kinda hope he runs in the 2028 primaries, that his nomination speech is at least 6 hours long, and wholly ad libs it.
The people impacted in the alternative scenario.
And in turn, they’ll keep impeaching you.
the great thing about vetos is they can be overridden. thay migjt just push hom over the edge to oblivion
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 …
So, they will override his veto
That depends on whether the Democrats win every senate seat that’s contested this year. If not, they’ll probably need some fence crossers in the senate to reach the two thirds majority to override the veto.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
All three of these monikers can be used to describe Alan Dershowitz.
“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.”
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.
Obviously
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.
