So he says. I'm sure some things will get passed, others will probably not, and others will get completely ignored.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
So he says. I'm sure some things will get passed, others will probably not, and others will get completely ignored.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was created by a Republican for that very reason.
Who says it is ?
It's Mike Pence's lifelong goal. He's going to go after it with everything he can from the Vice Presidency. We'll see.
The idea that Trump campaigns as an outsider ready to tear Washington apart from within, wins on the back of the disaffected voters this brings over, then proceeds to govern as a typical Washington GOPer seems absurd to me. Is he not planning on winning re-election? People said he'd pivot after winning the nomination.
Roe v Wade is a Supreme Court decision. Pence has no influence over it.
if people pointlessly protesting now showed half as much passion during the election, hillary would have won.
Is Trump planning on appointing liberal justices then?
What do you think that accomplishes though?
What are you saying? I dislike Donald Trump and didn't vote for him? We know. Half of America didn't vote for him two days ago. The other half did. It's a known fact. No one has forgotten it. What's the point of saying it again?
Or do you think democracy should be conducted on the basis of who shouts loudest?
* THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;
I really really hope he pulls through on this one. It shall be funny for the next 100 years.
The liberal echo chamber is in many ways more pervasive than the conservative one. At least the conservatives know there are a load of liberals out there who really believe what they say. Liberals frequently seem surprised by the number of people who actually want to enact racist/sesxist/homphobic policies, while accusing conservatives of living in denial.
I doubt it. He will probably appoint Conservative leaning justices.
I'm well aware. If Ginsberg goes in the next couple of years and the administration gets to pick a couple of conservative justices... I think Roe v Wade is overturned.
I do agree with you there. I tried to explain to people during the campaign that he probably wasn't the person he had created for himself in his new role as presidential candidate, that his views were mainly there to win the support he craved, but I didn't get very far.
I think everyone's guilty of living in their own echo chambers (especially as Facebook goes out of its way to create one for you). There seems to me to be little sense in trying to work out who is worse.
You can't compare total votes against her husband for example though. The size of the voting population is markedly different.
Yes. A Republican dominated Congress who wants, nay, yearns for it will put forward the bill. Trump will sign it either because he himself truly believes in it or even if he doesn't he will do so to keep his supporters properly placated. Finally, by then what will be a conservative majority Supreme Court, will ratify it.
No other possible outcome I'm afraid. Appalling times ahead.
Thats a fair point, it was just an easy example to pick. I think she's already ahead of him though with quite a few votes (millions?) yet to be counted. So she might even beat him when weighted for demographic changes.
I'd love to have an echo chamber like that from time to time. I have no idea how people even do this without giving up on receiving and discussing news at all.
Roe v Wade is safe if RBG can last another 8 years. Kennedy still has compassion in him. If she steps down then all bets are off.
But what if he wants to be reelected? He does need this character to keep going, and reflect that character into actions, right?
She won't step down. But she might die.
Crazy that she didn't step down under Obama. Absolutely crazy.
I doubt that will have ever crossed his mind.
Tbf if he doesn't care about a 2nd term (which is entirely possible imo) he doesn't have to care about his supporters.
Nothing wrong with protest against many of the proposed policies he has spoken about. Just because the election is over doesn't mean everyone has to just roll-over and accept every decision that will come out of Washington DC for the next 4 years. Will it change anything? Probably not, but that doesn't mean everyone has to remain quiet. Sometimes good things come from protests.
As far as the last sentence goes, if you pulled that from my post then you really need to take some reading comprehension courses or at least understand the difference between what you read and what you imagine you are reading. Not all protests are about shouting louder than everyone else.
We've had multiple Republican Congresses and President and Conservative Supreme Court in the early 2000s and it wasn't overturned. Why would now be any different ?
The protests allow people to mark their opposition to Trump and engenders political activism amongst those who have never involved themselves before. On a very basic level it also makes people feel better as it gives a sense that they are at least doing something.
Protests are part of democracy, it doesn't mean that it's moving towards those who shout the loudest.
Abortion depends on Kennedy and Roberts.
Any legislative action on climate change is blocked for ~10-20 years.
Any legislative action on climate change is blocked for ~10-20 years.
She might be ... but honestly I'm struggling to see any relevance of it? Comparing to the previous two, at most three, elections could be defended. But Bill is just too far back. I suspect the voting population since then is tens of millions more.
Do you think their views would be heard otherwise? Trump claims he will be a president for all - does his election strategy show he will?
A protest is about achieving change and making your voice heard. Sure the president elect is going to change to their choice, but they serve as a reminder to Trump that there are people in this country he has to think about whom he previously hasn't.
If the turnout among the African American community was genuinely low, someone needs to give them a good talking to, if they complain about policies.
In fact, the whole Dem base needs telling off. They don't turn out for mid-terms, they're not as passionate about senate races and they expect change.
I get angry when my friends who don't vote complain about social issues, and there're a lot of them. Go out and vote ffs!
In fact, the whole Dem base needs telling off. They don't turn out for mid-terms, they're not as passionate about senate races and they expect change.
I get angry when my friends who don't vote complain about social issues, and there're a lot of them. Go out and vote ffs!
Because the (relatively) socially liberal, economically conservative Republicans have largely been expunged from congress.
Even if Roe vs Wade isn't actually overturned, I can see the Supreme Court being much more lenient on state measures which make abortion extremely difficult, verging on impossible, to obtain.
Yes Roe v. Wade and the Paris deal are the two things we can pretty much expect to be gone, which is enormously upsetting.
Totally this
Well the point was there's no point really. I was complaining that comparing over all voting figures was pointless because she won the popular vote and picked two examples I knew.
Despite that the reaction has been 'Trump inspired, Clinton bored', but it wasn't a lack of people in general voting for Hillary but a lack of people voting for her in some very specific states that was the only issue. An issue that I'm sure was caused by her campaign getting too big for its boots and targeting places she was never likely to win and neglecting the battlegrounds.
Congress has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. We have had a conservative Supreme Court since the 1970s when Roe was decided and it has never been overturned.
I know how the system works Raoul! In reality all the branches of government influence each other, with a time lag. A socially conservative president (or one acting as such) will nominate socially conservative justices, to be confirmed by a socially conservative senate, eventually issuing socially conservative rulings in the court.
Your status quo bias is really strong. Just because something hasn't happened in 40 years doesn't mean it can't happen now. What do you think would prevent Roe vs Wade being overturned if the complexion of the court allowed it and the political will was there to push the issue? (I know you'll say 'political will is irrelevant to the supreme court', but in reality it's drives much of the agenda. There's a reason the gay marriage ruling happened when it did.)
In the US we have had changes over the decades that came about in part because people protested.
If your theory is true then why didn't it happen in 2002, 2004 etc ? Republican President, Republican Congress, and a 5-4 Conservative leaning Supreme Court.
- Status