Republican Party is Broken

[TarHeelEer]

Without a big enough majority to override a veto, what does it get you to pass legislation that you know is going nowhere?

...give us our way or we'll burn it down.

Why isn't it the one veto-ing that is burning it down? At least just as much responsibility as the 435 others.

 

[mneilmont]

Mule_eer got it right. Without a big enough majority to override a veto, what does it get you to pass legislation that you know is going nowhere? For what, to prove an ideological point, like they did with their 8,672 votes to defund Obamacare? Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. And what, exactly, were those other members elected to do besides obstruct the president at every turn? They've never said.

Until the Tea Party came along, both parties treated a government shutdown as a failure. That changed a bit with Newt Gingrich -- and John Kasich and John Boehner, which is why I laugh at those who say Boehner isn't "conservative enough". Now it's the favored tactic of the Radical Right -- give us our way or we'll burn it down.

It doesn't surprise me that you fail to see the difference. Allow me to attempt to differentiate.

The Repubs are offering a budget that keeps the Govt working. See the difference yet? Then, Obama and Harry refuse to sign and allow the government to continue working without interruption. See the difference yet? The minority Dems block and cause the Government to shut down. Is this where Einstein was. Let me answer with a NO. It is exactly opposite of the prior situation. New leader puts it on agenda and it passes and moves to Senate. Now, the Senate minority can block.

Who shut the govt ddown?

 

[mneilmont]

Why isn't it the one veto-ing that is burning it down? At least just as much responsibility as the 435 others.

THE, do you think they are temporarily being dismissive of the situation and willing to move on?

 

[TarHeelEer]

THE, do you think they are temporarily being dismissive of the situation and willing to move on?

It seems to me that libs want all governmental issues blamed on one party, and to move forward with the progressive agenda, truth and results be damned. They've worked so well for 60 years now, let's keep going. Everyone is out of poverty and we've spent just a little bit combating poverty, right?

 

[Popeer]

Why isn't it the one veto-ing that is burning it down? At least just as much responsibility as the 435 others.

You do understand how the veto process works, right? Congress sends up a bill that the president has said he will veto. He vetoes, which sends it back to Congress. Without the necessary two-thirds majority, the override fails, putting it back on Congress to pass a bill that the president will sign.

It doesn't surprise me that you fail to see the difference. Allow me to attempt to differentiate.

The Repubs are offering a budget that keeps the Govt working. See the difference yet? Then, Obama and Harry refuse to sign and allow the government to continue working without interruption. See the difference yet? The minority Dems block and cause the Government to shut down. Is this where Einstein was. Let me answer with a NO. It is exactly opposite of the prior situation. New leader puts it on agenda and it passes and moves to Senate. Now, the Senate minority can block.

Who shut the govt down?

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Both Boehner and McConnell understand that they don't have the required number of votes to override a presidential veto, and they aren't willing to shut down the government just to demonstrate to the Tea Party idiots that they don't have the votes to override a presidential veto, meaning that they would have to pass something the president will sign in order to keep the government open anyway, so why not do it and avoid a shutdown? At one time both Congress and the White House viewed a government shutdown as an embarrassing failure. So I don't know why you think it would be a good thing to pass something that's going to be vetoed. If they had the required two-thirds to override I could see it, but if a frog had a parachute he wouldn't bust his *** on every hop. Maybe those idiots learned something with yesterday's 77-19 vote in the Senate, but I doubt it.

 

[TarHeelEer]

You do understand how the veto process works, right?

Well golly gee Pops, I had no idea how it works.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Both Boehner and McConnell understand that they don't have the required number of votes to override a presidential veto

You're laying all of the responsibility on the legislative to make the executive happy. That's not how balance of power is supposed to work. Executive is just as responsible as legislative for anything happening/not happening.

 

[Airport]

I'd rather say I have a mental illness than say I am retarded! It sucks no matter what ya call it.

Yu wouldn't understand it one way or the other.:wink:

 

[Popeer]

You're laying all of the responsibility on the legislative to make the executive happy.

Hmmm ... Do you suppose "making the executive happy" is why the Framers put the requirement for a two-thirds majority vote to override a veto in the Constitution? Why would they do that, when their aim was supposedly to limit executive authority and give the Congress primacy? That same article specifically gives the executive the right to "object" to any bill and send it back.

 

[mneilmont]

Why isn't it the one veto-ing that is burning it down? At least just as much responsibility as the 435 others.

THE, do you think they are temporarily being dismissive of the situation and willing to move on?

You do understand how the veto process works, right? Congress sends up a bill that the president has said he will veto. He vetoes, which sends it back to Congress. Without the necessary two-thirds majority, the override fails, putting it back on Congress to pass a bill that the president will sign.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Both Boehner and McConnell understand that they don't have the required number of votes to override a presidential veto, and they aren't willing to shut down the government just to demonstrate to the Tea Party idiots that they don't have the votes to override a presidential veto, meaning that they would have to pass something the president will sign in order to keep the government open anyway, so why not do it and avoid a shutdown? At one time both Congress and the White House viewed a government shutdown as an embarrassing failure. So I don't know why you think it would be a good thing to pass something that's going to be vetoed. If they had the required two-thirds to override I could see it, but if a frog had a parachute he wouldn't bust his *** on every hop. Maybe those idiots learned something with yesterday's 77-19 vote in the Senate, but I doubt it.

First then, maybe we need to

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

You do understand how the veto process works, right? Congress sends up a bill that the president has said he will veto. He vetoes, which sends it back to Congress. Without the necessary two-thirds majority, the override fails, putting it back on Congress to pass a bill that the president will sign.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Both Boehner and McConnell understand that they don't have the required number of votes to override a presidential veto, and they aren't willing to shut down the government just to demonstrate to the Tea Party idiots that they don't have the votes to override a presidential veto, meaning that they would have to pass something the president will sign in order to keep the government open anyway, so why not do it and avoid a shutdown? At one time both Congress and the White House viewed a government shutdown as an embarrassing failure. So I don't know why you think it would be a good thing to pass something that's going to be vetoed. If they had the required two-thirds to override I could see it, but if a frog had a parachute he wouldn't bust his *** on every hop. Maybe those idiots learned something with yesterday's 77-19 vote in the Senate, but I doubt it.

The only thing I will say on this is that IF you are willing to shutdown the government, then you have to be willing to do it for as long as it will take to make the other person blink. You can't do it for just a show. At some point, regardless of the initial PR, the pendulum will swing to the side not signing what was approved in Congress/Senate meaning the President's office. It's not something you just play around with though and it better damn well be for something of significant importance and cost. The problem with this **** is that no one will stay the course on the GOP side and they blink at the initial public onslaught, which makes it a fruitless endeavor.

 

[mneilmont]

THE, do you think they are temporarily being dismissive of the situation and willing to move on?


First then, maybe we need to

 

[mneilmont]

THE, do you think they are temporarily being dismissive of the situation and willing to move o

You do understand how the veto process works, right? Congress sends up a bill that the president has said he will veto. He vetoes, which sends it back to Congress. Without the necessary two-thirds majority, the override fails, putting it back on Congress to pass a bill that the president will sign.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Both Boehner and McConnell understand that they don't have the required number of votes to override a presidential veto, and they aren't willing to shut down the government just to demonstrate to the Tea Party idiots that they don't have the votes to override a presidential veto, meaning that they would have to pass something the president will sign in order to keep the government open anyway, so why not do it and avoid a shutdown? At one time both Congress and the White House viewed a government shutdown as an embarrassing failure. So I don't know why you think it would be a good thing to pass something that's going to be vetoed. If they had the required two-thirds to override I could see it, but if a frog had a parachute he wouldn't bust his *** on every hop. Maybe those idiots learned something with yesterday's 77-19 vote in the Senate, but I doubt it.

Let me start this damned thing again. The last time I responded I had considered putting it in a binder and selling. Then I hit post and the ***** thing did not enter. Hit it again and an hour later I find the first line only posted. Tried to "edit" to retype and I couldn't get it to give me right to edit.

Now, I cannot get this to post. ****.

 

[mneilmont]

You do understand how the veto process works, right? Congress sends up a bill that the president has said he will veto. He vetoes, which sends it back to Congress. Without the necessary two-thirds majority, the override fails, putting it back on Congress to pass a bill that the president will sign.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Both Boehner and McConnell understand that they don't have the required number of votes to override a presidential veto, and they aren't willing to shut down the government just to demonstrate to the Tea Party idiots that they don't have the votes to override a presidential veto, meaning that they would have to pass something the president will sign in order to keep the government open anyway, so why not do it and avoid a shutdown? At one time both Congress and the White House viewed a government shutdown as an embarrassing failure. So I don't know why you think it would be a good thing to pass something that's going to be vetoed. If they had the required two-thirds to override I could see it, but if a frog had a parachute he wouldn't bust his *** on every hop. Maybe those idiots learned something with yesterday's 77-19 vote in the Senate, but I doubt it.

Short answer is that in our form of Government we have THREE co-equal branches. Administrative, Legislative, and Judicial. No branch is subordinate to either of the other two branches. The legislative is made up of two houses with neither subordinate to the other.

 

[mneilmont]

You do understand how the veto process works, right? Congress sends up a bill that the president has said he will veto. He vetoes, which sends it back to Congress. Without the necessary two-thirds majority, the override fails, putting it back on Congress to pass a bill that the president will sign.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Both Boehner and McConnell understand that they don't have the required number of votes to override a presidential veto, and they aren't willing to shut down the government just to demonstrate to the Tea Party idiots that they don't have the votes to override a presidential veto, meaning that they would have to pass something the president will sign in order to keep the government open anyway, so why not do it and avoid a shutdown? At one time both Congress and the White House viewed a government shutdown as an embarrassing failure. So I don't know why you think it would be a good thing to pass something that's going to be vetoed. If they had the required two-thirds to override I could see it, but if a frog had a parachute he wouldn't bust his *** on every hop. Maybe those idiots learned something with yesterday's 77-19 vote in the Senate, but I doubt it.

Short answer is that in our form of Government we have THREE co-equal branches. Administrative, Legislative, and Judicial. No branch is subordinate to either of the other two branches. The legislative is made up of two houses with neither subordinate to the other.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

The only thing I will say on this is that IF you are willing to shutdown the government, then you have to be willing to do it for as long as it will take to make the other person blink. You can't do it for just a show. At some point, regardless of the initial PR, the pendulum will swing to the side not signing what was approved in Congress/Senate meaning the President's office. It's not something you just play around with though and it better damn well be for something of significant importance and cost. The problem with this **** is that no one will stay the course on the GOP side and they blink at the initial public onslaught, which makes it a fruitless endeavor.

Exactly, and the dumbasses in the Senate were ready to shut down the government last week over PP funding but voted yesterday 77-19, which included funding for PP. WTF?

 

[Popeer]

Exactly, and the dumbasses in the Senate were ready to shut down the government last week over PP funding but voted yesterday 77-19, which included funding for PP. WTF?

Correction: Only 19 dumbasses in the Senate were willing to shut down the government over PP funding (and other items, PP just gets all the ink and air time right now). It will be interesting to see how the vote on the CR itself goes in both the Senate and the House.

 

[mneilmont]

Short answer is that in our form of Government we have THREE co-equal branches. Administrative, Legislative, and Judicial. No branch is subordinate to either of the other two branches. The legislative is made up of two houses with neither subordinate to the other.

You are attempting to subordinate the legislative to the administrative when you suggest the legislative is required to get Pre-Approval from the President that he will sign a bill before it is passed by legislative. If President gives forewarning that he will not sign, you offer that it is the legislative responsibility to rewrite the bill and give the President what he wants before it is sent to him. The US Constitution does not give the President the power to demand only bills he will sign. President has the right to veto, but there is no obligation on legislative to give him ONLY that which he will sign.

This President has assumed that power only because the legislative leaders have not exercised their rights given to (either) congress. The President and either one body of congress cannot subordinate the other body of congress. This President originally came into office with majority control in either house, so he initially had no resistance. Then the House majority was given to opposition party, and next election the Senate too switched majority party. The President lost the power to receive only bills that he would pass, but the opposition party leaders did not exert their equal power for fear they would be accused of shutting down the government.

Leadership in the houses is about to change because the leaders would not support majority vote in either house.

 

[mneilmont]

Short answer is that in our form of Government we have THREE co-equal branches. Administrative, Legislative, and Judicial. No branch is subordinate to either of the other two branches. The legislative is made up of two houses with neither subordinate to the other.

You are attempting to subordinate the legislative to the administrative when you suggest the legislative is required to get Pre-Approval from the President that he will sign a bill before it is passed by legislative. If President gives forewarning that he will not sign, you offer that it is the legislative responsibility to rewrite the bill and give the President what he wants before it is sent to him. The US Constitution does not give the President the power to demand only bills he will sign. President has the right to veto, but there is no obligation on legislative to give him ONLY that which he will sign.

This President has assumed that power only because the legislative leaders have not exercised their rights given to (either) congress. The President and either one body of congress cannot subordinate the other body of congress. This President originally came into office with majority control in either house, so he initially had no resistance. Then the House majority was given to opposition party, and next election the Senate too switched majority party. The President lost the power to receive only bills that he would pass, but the opposition party leaders did not exert their equal power for fear they would be accused of shutting down the government.

Leadership in the houses is about to change because the leaders would not support majority vote in either house.

 

[Airport]

If we could shut down all payments to non essential personnel, that would be completely acceptable. By non essential, I mean the entire govt.

 

[Popeer]

The US Constitution does not give the President the power to demand only bills he will sign. President has the right to veto, but there is no obligation on legislative to give him ONLY that which he will sign.

True. However, if Congress sends up a bill the president has promised to veto, and knowing they don't have the votes to override, what do they gain by going ahead -- unless they think they can get the president to relent? That's a politically risky calculation going into a presidential election year and the last time they tried it, it gave Bill Clinton a second term even though they actually got much of what they demanded from him in the end. Of course they won't be facing an incumbent this time.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

If we could shut down all payments to non essential personnel, that would be completely acceptable. By non essential, I mean the entire govt.

 

[mneilmont]

True. However, if Congress sends up a bill the president has promised to veto, and knowing they don't have the votes to override, what do they gain by going ahead -- unless they think they can get the president to relent? That's a politically risky calculation going into a presidential election year and the last time they tried it, it gave Bill Clinton a second term even though they actually got much of what they demanded from him in the end. Of course they won't be facing an incumbent this time.

I suspect there will bee a bunch of one term congressmen if they are going to immediately adopt the DC way of life. Risk either way, but your assumption is that the repubs get blame. I suggest the Pres and dems get blamed if the bill is accepted by majorities in the budget process, and then minority dems block and/or Pres vetos

 

[mneilmont]

True. However, if Congress sends up a bill the president has promised to veto, and knowing they don't have the votes to override, what do they gain by going ahead -- unless they think they can get the president to relent? That's a politically risky calculation going into a presidential election year and the last time they tried it, it gave Bill Clinton a second term even though they actually got much of what they demanded from him in the end. Of course they won't be facing an incumbent this time.

I would suggest that Newt's back down and acceptance of Clinton ultimatum has been what has caused the whole damned system to be what it has evolved into with Repubs tucking tail and running at the threat of a veto and shutdown. Repubs have got to get balls in congress and take back their Constitutional demanded equality.

 

[mneilmont]

True. However, if Congress sends up a bill the president has promised to veto, and knowing they don't have the votes to override, what do they gain by going ahead -- unless they think they can get the president to relent? That's a politically risky calculation going into a presidential election year and the last time they tried it, it gave Bill Clinton a second term even though they actually got much of what they demanded from him in the end. Of course they won't be facing an incumbent this time.

I would suggest that Newt's back down and acceptance of Clinton ultimatum has been what has caused the whole damned system to be what it has evolved into with Repubs tucking tail and running at the threat of a veto and shutdown. Repubs have got to get balls in congress and take back their Constitutional demanded equality.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I would suggest that Newt's back down and acceptance of Clinton ultimatum has been what has caused the whole damned system to be what it has evolved into with Repubs tucking tail and running at the threat of a veto and shutdown. Repubs have got to get balls in congress and take back their Constitutional demanded equality.

I agree, but it better damn well be for a good reason and for significant differences of opinion in the budget. Shutting down over $400k for Planned Parenthood would be suicidal. So, if I were king for a day, I make a very fair and reasonable budget to both parties over the next couple of months and then go to war in Dec and not back down over anything.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

A US Representative just introduced a bill to end government shutdowns. Guess which party he is from.

 

[mneilmont]

A US Representative just introduced a bill to end government shutdowns. Guess which party he is from.

Did the Bill also include which side had to capitulate? End of government shut downs is no big deal, IMO. The kick in the *** is at what cost?

 

[mneilmont]

I agree, but it better damn well be for a good reason and for significant differences of opinion in the budget. Shutting down over $400k for Planned Parenthood would be suicidal. So, if I were king for a day, I make a very fair and reasonable budget to both parties over the next couple of months and then go to war in Dec and not back down over anything.

I don't think there is a question at this time since both leaders who have the power to determine what the floor agenda is to be, and they have already said there would be no shut down. Pretty sure we will operate under a CR 'til Dec. With new leadership at that time, I would think all bets are off. PP will be center of attention and anything else that has been forced down the throats of majority by current leadership.

 

[mneilmont]

True. However, if Congress sends up a bill the president has promised to veto, and knowing they don't have the votes to override, what do they gain by going ahead -- unless they think they can get the president to relent? That's a politically risky calculation going into a presidential election year and the last time they tried it, it gave Bill Clinton a second term even though they actually got much of what they demanded from him in the end. Of course they won't be facing an incumbent this time.

I do not think the Clinton situation can be compared to the current Obama situation. Clinton had already moved to center and he was still popular with the public except that Hillary was pissed off, but making excuses. Economy was moving at good pace with GDP growth in 6% and unemployment(correctly) at 4.5%. Blue dress not an issue.

Obama is being exposed as a very weak leader. Putin kicking his *** at every turn. Iraq not a pleasant ending. Iran got a good deal and US got nothing but short end of straw. ISIS. And, he is going to be forced to make a deal on appropriation. If he elects to shut government down, it is not going to be comparable to Clinton situation, IMO.

 

[mneilmont]

True. However, if Congress sends up a bill the president has promised to veto, and knowing they don't have the votes to override, what do they gain by going ahead -- unless they think they can get the president to relent? That's a politically risky calculation going into a presidential election year and the last time they tried it, it gave Bill Clinton a second term even though they actually got much of what they demanded from him in the end. Of course they won't be facing an incumbent this time.

I do not think the Clinton situation can be compared to the current Obama situation. Clinton had already moved to center and he was still popular with the public except that Hillary was pissed off, but making excuses. Economy was moving at good pace with GDP growth in 6% and unemployment(correctly) at 4.5%. Blue dress not an issue.

Obama is being exposed as a very weak leader. Putin kicking his *** at every turn. Iraq not a pleasant ending. Iran got a good deal and US got nothing but short end of straw. ISIS. And, he is going to be forced to make a deal on appropriation. If he elects to shut government down, it is not going to be comparable to Clinton situation, IMO.

 

[dave]

The fact that you think Libtards isn't offensive to Mentally Ill people just reinforces.

Im sorry


That you are a fuknpussy.

 

[mule_eer]

Sounds exactly like how reid and pelosi ran congress when Bush was president. Voters made a change and Boehner was more worried about himself than he was his mandate.

How many shutdowns were there while the Dems ran the legislative and W was in the WH?

I think DevilDog makes a good point. If this is about something that is major importance, maybe you stand to make some ground by shutting everything down. The PP funding is a tear drop in the ocean of the overall budget. Honestly, I don't care if it's in there or not, but I definitely wouldn't shut everything down over it. It's a horrible PR move.

 

[dave]

How many shutdowns were there while the Dems ran the legislative and W was in the WH?

I think DevilDog makes a good point. If this is about something that is major importance, maybe you stand to make some ground by shutting everything down. The PP funding is a tear drop in the ocean of the overall budget. Honestly, I don't care if it's in there or not, but I definitely wouldn't shut everything down over it. It's a horrible PR move.

Its irrelevant how many shutdowns there were. The dems welcome the shutdowns when the gop is in power because they know how they will spin it. They are as guilty as anyone when it happens because they want it to happen for their own gain.

 

[dave]

A US Representative just introduced a bill to end government shutdowns. Guess which party he is from.

A message board poster is naive and often falls for political attention whoring by his favorite party pols. Guess who it is?

 

[mneilmont]

How many shutdowns were there while the Dems ran the legislative and W was in the WH?

I think DevilDog makes a good point. If this is about something that is major importance, maybe you stand to make some ground by shutting everything down. The PP funding is a tear drop in the ocean of the overall budget. Honestly, I don't care if it's in there or not, but I definitely wouldn't shut everything down over it. It's a horrible PR move.

Is there no longer a right or wrong? Can principle not be an issue? Is it just government money? Are congressmen not supposed to be stewards of the money? Why is the people's money being spent to fund this operation that is not a government operation? Financial Statements reports that Revenue exceeds Expenditures and government money is not
necessary to keep the doors open. Salary for Richards seems excessive for a not for profit organization, but that is not my question, and neither are the videos at this time.

 

[Keyser76]

Its irrelevant how many shutdowns there were. The dems welcome the shutdowns when the gop is in power because they know how they will spin it. They are as guilty as anyone when it happens because they want it to happen for their own gain.

Lol, The conservative brain really does work different. If I tell you not to do something under my power as a supervisor and you do it anyway then it is my fault for the consequences? Can you imagine if any President allowed his veto power to be ignored and then capitulated whenever either side held funding the Government over his head if he did? Go ahead and shut it down, no one will have to spin it.

 

[Mntneer]

Shutting down over Planned Parenthood is fracking ridiculous. Minuscule amount of money, there are other ways to get to them and have an impact on their ability to operate as is.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

I actually thought the Tea Party was going to be THE 3rd party. When it first started, I was all for it because it was started based in Libertarian principles and fiscal conservatism. Then it got hijacked by the religious nuts and now I can barely tolerate them.

That was my thinking as well. However, not only were they hijacked by the religious nuts, but they caved to the money offered by big business. That doesn't make them unique, of course, but it was one of the things that was supposed to make them unique. Didn't last long.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Lol, The conservative brain really does work different.

It obviously does.

If I tell you not to do something under my power as a supervisor and you do it anyway then it is my fault...

Can you tell me where it specifies that in 3 equal branches of government that the president is the supervisor of the legislative?

 

[Keyser76]

It obviously does.



Can you tell me where it specifies that in 3 equal branches of government that the president is the supervisor of the legislative?

Lol, he isn't, but it was the only analogy I could think of. Like I've said, shut it down then, the GOP establishment are obviously idiots, don't listen to them, go with Cruz on this, the polls are wrong, Obama will be blamed.