«12. . .1,0751,0761,0771,0781,0791,0801,081. . .2,5672,568»
I don't think she's against Universal Healthcare, just that she doesn't see it as feasible in the near future? Which is the same thing economist Paul Krugman argues. Personally, I don't think it's a bad thing to learn from ones mistakes and change ones beliefs.
Changing your personal views is one thing, but running in an election under one set of election promises, and then changing your view on those issues once you're in power, is a completely different thing.
Lady Marian and Sterling greenery
I was kidding, who would want him as prez?
Hi, New Fakeland, I like your pants.
What's different? Politicians have been doing that forever and the lemmings that are the majority of the electorate keep voting them in office. :(
Is it weird that I really wanted Kasich to win? I mean he seemed like at least like a non-radical. I feel like the only two options in this election is an extreme conservative or extreme liberal. And Kasich kinda seemed like a Centrist to me with his views. That and Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed him.
I personally liked Rubio, but meh.
I was thinking more of the final 3, I'd definitely put Rubio in the normal bunch even if I didn't really like him personally.
I like Jeb :)
I have to ask, what country are you from? Because pants can mean trousers in some places, and is short for underpants in others, and I want to know how worried [or curious ;) ] I should be about your comment :P
Be afraid, be VERY afraid. lol
Lady Marian and Mitart
Turdisa is back
Almost half of Republicans do. LoL Today Trump told Christ Christie to stop eating Oreos, LMAO.
People please endorse me please.Anyways... what are you talking about?
I don't know much about how the US government works, but doesn't the President need Congress's approval before he can enact his bad laws?
Like that wall nonsense?
Just outlawed gambling, that was a dumb idea.
Other way around. The President, despite the way everybody likes to portray the office, is not a king, and does not make law. That's the legislature's job. The President is the head of the executive branch, whose job is to carry out the legislature's laws.
Basically, the way it works: We have a bicameral legislature - two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate, with somewhat different rules about how they work. One chamber or the other introduces a bill. and votes on it. If the bill secures a majority vote, it goes to the other chamber to vote on. If it also secures a majority there, it goes on to the President, who has the choice of signing it into law, or vetoing it. If he vetoes it, it goes back to the legislature, and both chambers can vote to override the veto, which requires a 2/3rds majority in both chambers. If the bill fails at any stage here, it's dead. If it passes all these stages, it becomes law. (And there are some other quirks and curlicues on here, and this doesn't even touch on the role of the Supreme Court and the rest of the judicial branch, but that's the basic outline.)
So Trump cannot enact insane laws. The most he can do is encourage the legislature to pass insane laws that he can then gleefully sign into law and enthusiastically enforce.
The problem is that both chambers of the legislature are already under the control of lunatics who want to burn down Western civilization. The main reason they haven't succeeded yet is that Obama doesn't want them to, and they don't have enough of a majority to override his veto. This situation is likely to continue in the House. The Senate may flip to Democratic control with the upcoming election... or it may not. Either way, neither side is going to have enough of a majority to override a veto, so a Clinton II presidency will be more of the same as the last eight years. If Trump wins, however, he'll have an insane Congress ready to feed him whatever kind of insanity he wants.
Lady Marian and The wings of morelia
That's a little bit like the Roman Republic there. The voting part I mean, that I know of anyway.
I'm guessing the Supreme Court is neutral and can't vote or veto any laws?
Bills, I meant.
The role of the judicial branch in general is to adjudicate legal cases, determine whether or not laws are being broken, assign punishments within the scope of the law and so on. The Supreme Court is different, though. If a case gets to the Supreme Court, they're not ruling on whether the law was broken. They're ruling on whether the law is valid. They make decisions on whether to uphold the law as Constitutional, or rule it unConstitutional and so invalid and without force.
And this is kind of weird, because the Constitution doesn't really explicitly give them this power. The first Supreme Court kind of made it up for themselves out of implications, interpretations, and flimsy Constitutional justifications, and then used it to rule that it was totally valid.
Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President, and confirmed or rejected by the Senate, and they serve for life (or until they resign... or it's theoretically possible to impeach them, but that's only happened once ever, back in 1805, and it wasn't successful). One of the most conservative justices, Antonin Scalia, recently kicked the bucket. The Republican-controlled Senate has been refusing to even hold hearings on whether to confirm or deny Obama's proposed replacement, trying instead to run out the clock on the Obama Presidency, in hopes that, in the upcoming elections, they retain control of the Senate, and get a Republican President who will give them a justice they find more palatable.
Lady Marian and The wings of morelia
I'm actually pretty amazed no one really questions the ability for the Supreme court to have all that power.
Man, life must suck for those people.
You can arrest them, right? Everyone can be arrested if it's justified in the US, correct? Even Presidents, etc.?
Hey everybody. How's it going?
«12. . .1,0751,0761,0771,0781,0791,0801,081. . .2,5672,568»
Advertisement
