Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Market politics

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
This took me two minutes to find.

The Override of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Revenue Act of 1943 | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

"In response, Senate Majority Leader Alben Barkley of Kentucky resigned in protest and called Roosevelt’s comment, “a calculated and deliberate assault upon the legislative integrity of every member of Congress."

I think FDR was probably one of the most dictatorial presidents we've ever had. Including packing the Supreme Court.

That's a fine example. Thank you. The President appeared to be wrong and Congress appeared to do the right thing. Let's hope we always have Congresses that are that strong in defending the intent of the Constitution, even if a President wants to transgress.

In that 1943 case the Senate Majority Leader who resigned in protest was in FDR's party and eventually became Truman's Vice President. Let's hope Senate Majority Leader McConnell can be nearly as strong in upholding the lawmaking prerogative of Congress during the current situation.
 
Last edited:
It appears that Trump is considering shutdown as fundraising event as I have been presented today with few ads on YouTube with Trump personally encouraging to donate for 2020 (curiously all ads were attached to as seen on tv item reviews).
 
  • Informative
Reactions: neroden
Let me say that living in CA and seeing what people vote for I have come to the conclusion that most people read the first line of a proposition and decide which way to vote right then without any knowledge of the issue, far to many people are more interested in posting a picture on Facebook with their "I voted sticker" and seeing how many "Likes" they get than doing the actual research.

And I expect at LEAST 30 "disagree" I know i'm outnumbered 30 to 1 here, haha.

I think it was Churchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government... until you consider the alternatives."

I think every president has made his wishes made to Congress and back in the day Congress often would do something to at least take them under consideration. When Congress and the presidency are both controlled by the same parties Congress usually goes a long ways to give the president what he wants. With control of both houses over the last two years, the Republicans only managed to pass one piece of substantive legislation which was a horribly crafted mess of tax reform.

In this case the opposition party has made it clear that they are willing to consider a bill to fund something that meets the spirit of the president's demands without meeting the specifics. The president has responded by declaring he will keep the entire government shut down unless he gets exactly what he wants. The majority leader of the Senate is giving the president cover by refusing to do anything with the bills passed by the House.
 
Voting for limited sections of a barrier in some areas is completely different than approving an impractical, ineffective full border wall. As I've said previously, (and the Democrat leaders have as well), is that increased technological surveillance and personnel would be more effective and less costly. The wall is as outdated and ineffective concept as coal plants and ICE vehicles.
Well said. Moreover, Trump had a Republican House and Senate for two years. It didn’t seem to be such a priority then.
 
In this case the opposition party has made it clear that they are willing to consider a bill to fund something that meets the spirit of the president's demands without meeting the specifics.
The same leaders, specifically Schumer has stated in the past that he is for a wall, ahem, excuse me, a fence.

Why is it that NOW it is so immoral? Schulosi are saying "no wall, fence of any kind" I believe it is nieve to think that there is another reason other than the "Resist Trump" mantra.

H.R. 6061 (109th): Secure Fence Act of 2006 -- Senate Vote #262 -- Sep 29, 2006
 
Well said. Moreover, Trump had a Republican House and Senate for two years. It didn’t seem to be such a priority then.
It's like making a sandwich without the bread, it may work but it will be ineffective without the physical barrier as well, I believe that all of these high tech solutions should accompany a physical barrier where practical to build and that is also what is being stated by the White House and not a "Full border wall"
I agree that it did not seem to be much of a priority before mid terms as the Republicans knew it would weaken their chances for re election so even with the stronghold they ran, scared that it would hurt their chances in the future as well as the "Resit Trump" RINO's (Republics in name only) not supporting his agenda.
 
So I can count on the ultra rich on the left to be responsible in their actions without even showing up then correct?
"Left", historically, means listening to the desires of the people. The terms date from the French Revolution (specifically, the seating chart in the National Assembly) where the "left" supported more democracy and the "right" supported more power for the monarchy and aristocracy.

If an ultra-rich person is insulating themselves from even knowing the desires of the people, they are ipso facto right-wing. Perhaps you meant a different word? There are definitely right-wing Democratic billiionaires.

I mean, it would certainly help to force left-wing, and centrist, billionaires to show up in person at the House of Billionaires too. Someone has to argue with the right-wing billionaires in person, and it's not like they'll listen to the lower classes!
 
The same leaders, specifically Schumer has stated in the past that he is for a wall, ahem, excuse me, a fence.

Why is it that NOW it is so immoral? Schulosi are saying "no wall, fence of any kind" I believe it is nieve to think that there is another reason other than the "Resist Trump" mantra.

H.R. 6061 (109th): Secure Fence Act of 2006 -- Senate Vote #262 -- Sep 29, 2006

Um, that's a different fence which already got built.

Your insane argument is like saying "Because you supported one bridge 13 years ago, you must support all bridges, even really dumb ones".
 
Indeed, McConnell could send the bill to the President. If vetoed they should override, and then go about debating a separate wall bill in Congressional committees. If not then we are stuck with a long time closure of the government because the President wants to be a lawmaker. Eventually Congress would have to override or give in and become irrelevant as a lawmaking body.
Which shows us that the real problem is the extremely undemocratic Senate. I take pride in my consistency here: I have supported the abolition or reform of the Senate since I was 4. It makes no sense to allow Wyoming and Alaska and Vermont and North Dakota and South Dakota (BTW, there are two Dakotas because of ancient gerrymandering to get extra Senate votes) to steamroller over the entire populations of Texas, California, Florida, and New York.

Oh, and the fact that it requires *2/3* of the (already very undemocratic) Senate to remove a deranged criminal President from office. There's already majority support in both the House and Senate for removing Trump from office. 2/3 of the Senate is a weird, crazy requirement, especially since the Senate is already so nuts, with depopulated Wyoming having just as much power as gigantic California and Texas.
 
I will also point out that the Democrats actually offered Trump a deal for wall funding, three times -- first was with a path to immigration for DREAMers, and there were two more. Each time, Trump sank his OWN deal.

At some point, it just became clear that Trump couldn't be trusted. There was no point in offering him a deal because he would renege on it the same day.
 
This took me two minutes to find.

The Override of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Revenue Act of 1943 | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

"In response, Senate Majority Leader Alben Barkley of Kentucky resigned in protest and called Roosevelt’s comment, “a calculated and deliberate assault upon the legislative integrity of every member of Congress."

I think FDR was probably one of the most dictatorial presidents we've ever had. Including packing the Supreme Court.

If you can win four consecutive landslide votes by 57.4%, 60.8%, 54.7%, and 53.4% and bring your party into power in Congress with you, you can claim some popular mandate to push Congress around; the will of the people is the argument you use here.

Trump lost the popular vote.

I suggest you take a look at this chart. It gives an indication of which Presidents had a popular mandate to tell Congress what to do.

List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin - Wikipedia
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnnybgood888
Um, that's a different fence which already got built.

Your insane argument is like saying "Because you supported one bridge 13 years ago, you must support all bridges, even really dumb ones".
The fence was never completed but your insane support for all things left leaves you blinded and unable to see anything that does align with your supposed facts, the problem I see with fanatical Democrats like yourself is that you only see what you believe even if its really dumb.
 
American politics, vetter than Brexit I guess.

The way I see it from the outside looking in....

Regardless of policies or people resisting trump just because it's trump, your government equivalent are realising if they give in to demands even from a president ( who appears to demand his own way, which is not a bad thing to have a strong leader) where does the giving in to demands stop, if Trump wants a pony or better yet a unicorn he will just shut down congress untill some one makes one appear.

I was under the impression the government dose not negotiate when backed in to a corner ( not going to use the word terrorist as its not the correct use but would reiterate a point).

On the same side of the coin if a child misbehave and you let them have there own way you are making a rod for your own back!!

On a less bias biew, I only wish Mrs May had some of the bollocks Trump had, as this EU thing would be done and dusted!
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
American politics, vetter than Brexit I guess.

The way I see it from the outside looking in....

Regardless of policies or people resisting trump just because it's trump, your government equivalent are realising if they give in to demands even from a president ( who appears to demand his own way, which is not a bad thing to have a strong leader) where does the giving in to demands stop, if Trump wants a pony or better yet a unicorn he will just shut down congress untill some one makes one appear.

I was under the impression the government dose not negotiate when backed in to a corner ( not going to use the word terrorist as its not the correct use but would reiterate a point).

On the same side of the coin if a child misbehave and you let them have there own way you are making a rod for your own back!!

On a less bias biew, I only wish Mrs May had some of the bollocks Trump had, as this EU thing would be done and dusted!
I AM HOLDING MY BREATH UNTIL I GET A UNICORN!
gettyimages-184372977-1024x1024.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: JollyRoger
A few stray thoughts....

Bollocks? I only see a temper tantrum. There is bipartisan support for increasing border security, without the wall, so let it be done. McConnell should advance the bills. Trump is the only one who wants all or nothing and is willing to put OPM (via their jobs) on the line.

He said in a well publicized conversation with Pelosi and Schumer that he would shut the government down and he would own it. He’s certainly not owning it now, he’s blaming the Dems for his own stupidity.

As far as I can tell, none of the three states that have the largest part of the border want the wall. And two of those states are red.

And slightly OT but still related - regarding the “empathy” he showed tonight for the victims of illegal immigrant crime. He’s SO concerned about that relatively rare type of crime. But I don’t recall him ever going on TV and addressing the nation after any of the mass shootings that have plagued this country recently, such as LV, Parkland, the newspaper, the synagogue, etc. Has he sat with those parents and held their hands? Has he convened a committee or asked for funding to reduce American on American violence? How about a study of gun violence? Does he think the loved ones of random shootings heave a sigh of relief when they learn that son or daughter was killed by an American and not an illegal? It’s a far bigger problem than illegal immigrant violence, but crickets.....
 
The fence was never completed but your insane support for all things left leaves you blinded and unable to see anything that does align with your supposed facts, the problem I see with fanatical Democrats like yourself is that you only see what you believe even if its really dumb.

I haven't heard Schumer say why he changed his mind, but it might be that the portion of fence/wall that was completed has created a lot of problems and pretty much solved nothing. Drug cartels tunneled under the wall in several places and illegal immigrants either go around or over. Most of the people coming across the border today are people seeking asylum and all they need to do is get onto US soil. The wall needs to be built within the US border so all they need to do is get to the Mexico side of the wall and they will be in the US. A lot of drug traffic also comes into the US on trucks carrying other commerce.

Security experts have pointed out that a virtual fence is far more effective at catching anyone trying to get through the border and either smuggle drugs or illegally immigrate will get caught in a net of motion and vibration sensors monitored from a central location with response teams to turn up if anything interesting happens.

Building a wall or fence is a 5th century solution to a 21st century problem. It's throwing money away on a symbolic, but pointless gesture. A wall made of garden gnomes lined up shoulder to shoulder would be just as effective and probably cheaper.

American politics, vetter than Brexit I guess.

The way I see it from the outside looking in....

Regardless of policies or people resisting trump just because it's trump, your government equivalent are realising if they give in to demands even from a president ( who appears to demand his own way, which is not a bad thing to have a strong leader) where does the giving in to demands stop, if Trump wants a pony or better yet a unicorn he will just shut down congress untill some one makes one appear.

I was under the impression the government dose not negotiate when backed in to a corner ( not going to use the word terrorist as its not the correct use but would reiterate a point).

On the same side of the coin if a child misbehave and you let them have there own way you are making a rod for your own back!!

On a less bias biew, I only wish Mrs May had some of the bollocks Trump had, as this EU thing would be done and dusted!

I follow UK politics relatively closely, though not as close as US politics. The positions of the US Republican party are very close to the DUP. The only difference is the DUP have 8 seats in Parliament and the Republicans run the country.

The Republicans consider taking a position and refusing to budge a good thing, even when it turns out the idea is unworkable or just plain stupid. They criticize Democrats for being willing to negotiate and/or change their minds and call it a weakness. Most sane people consider those to be honorable or at least reasonable traits.

Though when I hear the Brits complain about their politicians like Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg I want to offer to trade. By any reasonable measure the UK is poorly led right now and there are some very poor politicians in leadership (or recently resigned), but all of them run circles around Donald Trump in both the competency and honesty department.

The Democrats in recent years have been decent at governing, but poor at politics. The Republicans have weaponized politics but completely forgot how to govern. The new generation of Democrats are learning how to play politics again and may be at least as good at governing as the older generation of Democrats (most are still too green to tell yet).
 
It's understandable that a President can veto a bill that contains something he does not approve. But for him to threaten to veto a bill unless something he wants is added, is an attempt to be a lawmaker. In effect it would make him a dictator and Congress irrelevant. That was not the intention of those who wrote the Constitution.

So, I'd argue that the entire government financing model is really problematic due to this issue with shutdowns, but there are plenty of reasons why a President should be able to veto a bill for not having something.

Think of a law enacting a new government program - if that law is missing some critical component for that program's functioning that makes a law harmful instead of good, a President should veto what Congress sent them. (Think the way the Affordable Care Act was structured...)
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Oil4AsphaultOnly
I will also point out that the Democrats actually offered Trump a deal for wall funding, three times -- first was with a path to immigration for DREAMers, and there were two more. Each time, Trump sank his OWN deal.

At some point, it just became clear that Trump couldn't be trusted. There was no point in offering him a deal because he would renege on it the same day.

Democrats are doing bad job negotiating. President holds the narrative every-single-time.

For example - Democrats should be highlighting how difficult shutdown has been to the workers. How people are forced to work with no pay. How it endengers our security and may cause deaths and leaves people untreated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.