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
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.
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
Me too especially given that he can launch nukes and kill every mammal on the planet
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
So what? So Democrats will at least be a check on the lawless corruption and incompetence of the Trump administration. That’s what the other 2 co-equal branches of government are supposed to do! Fuck Republicans and their kissing the ring of our wannabe mad king…
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.
The people impacted in the alternative scenario.
Democrats shouldn’t try to pass any legislation in that situation; it would be enough to do something the Republican Congress hasn’t done these past two years: control the actions of the executive branch.To put a stop to his unilateral excesses, to effectively prosecute corruption, to demand that he comply with the laws and regulations that limit his power, and to make him comply with court orders. That would be a job well done and full-time, without needing to pass any laws.
Making the Rs vote against Medicaid for all, and having Trump ultimately veto it would look very bad for them. Medicaid for all has broad support now.
(Yes, I know it’s Medicare for all, but it should be Medicaid for all, most people don’t know the difference.)
Especially when medicare rejects more and more, doesn’t cover drugs in itself, long-term care, and a plethora of other things.
When my family was poor a couple decades ago we were on Medicaid and it was so simple compared to how complicated Medicare seems to be, including having copays, and medications generally not being covered, and different “Parts” (not to mention “Advantage”). We were able to take our kids to the doctor and get them meds, everything just worked with no extra work or money on our part.
I’ve said Medicare for all seems like a scam and what we really need is Medicaid for all for years now, nice to see I ain’t the only one.
Son was on Medicaid for a while, due to being a preeme. An absolute dream of a health care program. You just get seen. Someone else deals with the paperwork.
Except payments are very low and most providers reject it. IIRC, $11or such for a routine dental visit. Which is fine if we had socialism where education didn’t cost a lifetime of repayment.
Making the Rs vote against Medicaid for all, and having Trump ultimately veto it would look very bad for them.
Chuck Summer and Hakeem Jefferies don’t want Medicare For All.
Then they should be on the record for it as well.
Medicare for the elderly and disabled.
Medicaid for the peasantry who qualify (and we’ll make sure as many as people as possible dont)
In general, I disagree with empty, inconsequential political gestures—and even more so in this case. Something like this might not enjoy as much consensus among Democratic lawmakers as you think; it would shift the debate toward economic issues and face opposition from doctors and hospital administrators. I’m not saying that’s reason enough to avoid such a move when it could actually be implemented; I’m just saying the debate might not unfold the way you expect. I believe that focusing on enforcing existing laws and mandates could be more effective.
Exactly. They will never control the batshit crazy that is going on in the other branches of government, but if they can gain solid, responsible control of both Houses, they can at least get Congress back on their Constitutional path, and then start using their Constitutional powers to get the other branches in line.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
They are not. The majority leader is not the parliamentarian.
Obviously
the great thing about vetos is they can be overridden. they might just push him over the edge to oblivion
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
And in turn, they’ll keep impeaching you.
Just a reminder…the reds outright said during Biden’s term that they would outright block any meaningful legislation for the sole reason to make him look bad. They give absolute ZERO FUCKS about actually making America great again but only about enriching themselves.
