Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Zaac, Oct 10, 2013.
So do 43% of Americans.
A new AP-GfK Poll is out and assigns blame for the shutdown and it continuing, thusly:
Please indicate how much responsibility each of the following holds for the federal government shutdown?
Republicans in Congress..62%
Democrats in Congress....49%
The Tea Party................43%
I thought the big complaint is that Boehner will not allow a vote. If that is the case, how can you blame the republicians.
The problem with this article, is that McCain is a RINO.
From the article:
While McCain didn't name names, he faulted members of Congress -- "tea partiers specifically" -- for wrongly telling "millions of Americans" that Obamacare can be defunded.
That "obviously wouldn’t happen until we had 67 Republican senators to override a presidential veto," McCain said.
Ted Cruz (Tea Party) and Mike Lee (Tea Party) were the drivers behind tying defunding ObamaCare to a continuing resolution to fund the government. They are responsible.
So McCain is a RINO. How does that change what Ted Cruz did? What about the 43% of the people in the poll results I posted?
McCain is in error in failing to note that the GOP retained a majority in the US House of Representatives.
If McCain wants to help the GOP, he should keep quiet or change his party affiliation to Democrat or both.
That's six percent fewer than blame the Great Pretender.
I'm sure he's aware of it. Surely you know that the House cannot unilaterally change laws, it takes the Senate and the President as well. McCain's point is right on.
Sure, but how many Tea Partiers are in the Legislature? I'm going to guess less than 43%, yet that is the amount of perceived blame being put on the Tea Party.
That's completely illogical spin. The poll question was "who's to blame?" not "how many are to blame?" The Tea Party, in that case, is one entity just as the Great Pretender.
I am sorry but there is no reason for the GOP in the House to endorse the Democrats since the Democrats did not win the House. Of course, I know that the House cannot change the laws but they can block until a deal is made. I can't imagine you Democrats rolling over for a Republican president because I remember how you treated Bush, not to mention Reagan and Bush Sr.
As for what McCain knows, I assume that he has not progressed into the Democrat Party so deeply that he does not know who controls the House, but I imagine that he looks down his nose at the House much as he looks down his nose at the Tea Party.
It doesn't bother me that McCain shines Obama's shoes--I just wish that he would admit to being a cryptic Democrat. McCain is a phony.
I am not a Democrat. I have not voted for a Democrat in 23 years. I voted for Reagan and both Bushes.
The president has absolutely no authority to change laws whatsoever. He can propose legislation, he can sign or veto legislation, but he has no vote but that is the limit of his roll regarding the passage or defeat of a bill. It is this aspect of his dictatorship that is going to get him impeached. He has usurped legislative authority for the executive branch by rewriting laws, deciding on the enforcement of some laws and not others, etc. A president has limited authority to fund legislation -- he can declare an emergency expenditure and uniformly remove funds from all programs in order to take care of a national disaster. That's it. The Constitution -- you remember that piece of paper, right? -- specifically rules him out of the legislative process beyond the above described roles he is allowed.
Dude, settle down. The President's signature is needed to change a law. In that sense the office is needed.
Wrong again. His signature only acknowledges he agrees with a law he had nothing to do with passing through the voting process. Through influence of his party and perhaps some of the other party, yes, he can have an effect on legislation. But he can do nothing, legally, to change it. He can approve the law by signing it, or disapprove of it by vetoing it. But he can't change legislation when it reaches his desk, and if Congress overrides his veto, even his disapproval doesn't stick.
He can rant and rave about the law all he wants. Change it? Not even.
Suppose anytime in the next three years Congress votes to repeal the ACA. Naturally, the Great Pretender will veto it. Do you know what happens if Congress overrides his veto?
Does it become law, or not?
Is there anything he can do to prevent the repeal once a veto-override passes?
Can he pretend the repeal didn't happen and continue to implement the ACA?
Looking forward to your answers.
Once again we are arguing semantics. You are correct if the President vetoes the changed law, and it is overridden, he hasn't changed the law. I would argue that if the law is changed by Congress and he signs it, he had a hand in changing it.
It sure is. as long as he says what the GOP wants him to say, they're okay with him. When he starts to speak the truth about them, then they need him to either hush or leave the party.
Sounds like this board.:laugh:
Funny how folks just assume you voted for a democrat just because you call their partisan mess out. I voted for Bush 1 and voted for Dubya the first time. I wrote someone in the second time since he lost his mind and decided to take a stand on saying that "Christians and Muslims worship the same god:
It's not semantics, it's the way the government functions. You can claim all you want that signing a revision in a law passed in Congress means he has a part in changing it if you want, but you will be incorrect. If he doesn't sign it, and Congress overrides his veto, he has no role in changing it, but it changes nonetheless.