POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Quit fighting strawmen. You know exactly what I meant. They gave those powers to a Republican governor. Now that it's going to be a Democrat governor, they want to take those powers away again

I don't know that they actually gave the powers to the governor. For all I know, the powers may have been existence for some time. But they are certainly proposing to take powers away from the governor.

As I said, they can do that. If people are offended by lame duck legislation like this, do something about it. Amend your constitution to prohibit legislation between election day and the day legislators are sworn in. But remember, that's going to work both ways.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

I don't know that they actually gave the powers to the governor. For all I know, the powers may have been existence for some time. But they are certainly proposing to take powers away from the governor.

As I said, they can do that. If people are offended by lame duck legislation like this, do something about it. Amend your constitution to prohibit legislation between election day and the day legislators are sworn in. But remember, that's going to work both ways.

Over and over and over again you fail to acknowledge that there's a difference. That's why people are upset with you. It has nothing to do with you striking a chord, or being above it all. It has everything to do with you blatantly ignoring the Elephant in the room.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

As I said, they can do that. If people are offended by lame duck legislation like this, do something about it. Amend your constitution to prohibit legislation between election day and the day legislators are sworn in.

Wisconsin voted for a full democratic party government. They are getting as close to a full republican party as possible. There is no legal means for changing that.

 

[French Rage]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

"We did nothing. No collusion. Mueller Report is just a big witch hunt".

End Counter Report.

C'mon, I don't see a single misspelling or misuse of quotation marks.

 

[Rover]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

The Rush Limbaugh era...

A right leaning act or push, defended and pushed further by right wing radio, acted upon by the right, lather, rinse, repeat. A vicious cyle where they continually eat their own sh**.

While I completely agree and consider the GOP to be a treasonous money laundering cult, some of this could not have been achieved without the lethargy on the left. Post Howard Dean, the Dems blew off the importance of down ballot races when idiots like Rahm Emmanuel and DWS gained Obama's favor. Goopers, or more specifically their shadowy big bucks backers like the Koch's, realized the damage they could do if they started taking over state houses, AG's, Secretary of states, etc. and they poured money and other resources into these races. Also realizing they were backing a bunch of dumbfuks they hired a company (ALEC) to write the laws and merely pass them along to their newly elected puppets. Evil and brilliant and all that but until recently they had the field to themselves.

The good thing is Dems are finally waking up to this phenomenon and acting accordingly. Sadly they joined the fight about 8 years later than their counterparts.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

While I completely agree and consider the GOP to be a treasonous money laundering cult, some of this could not have been achieved without the lethargy on the left. Post Howard Dean, the Dems blew off the importance of down ballot races when idiots like Rahm Emmanuel and DWS gained Obama's favor. Goopers, or more specifically their shadowy big bucks backers like the Koch's, realized the damage they could do if they started taking over state houses, AG's, Secretary of states, etc. and they poured money and other resources into these races. Also realizing they were backing a bunch of dumbfuks they hired a company (ALEC) to write the laws and merely pass them along to their newly elected puppets. Evil and brilliant and all that but until recently they had the field to themselves.

The good thing is Dems are finally waking up to this phenomenon and acting accordingly. Sadly they joined the fight about 8 years later than their counterparts.

All true. And Democrats also ALWAYS try to work with Republicans no matter what. Amy Klobuchar for example. They are naturally consensus, common ground people who want Government to work. Also, back when all that was going on there were many many blue dog Democrats who swung a lot of power. Those people are Republicans now. Although the pendulum swung back a little this cycle and the blue dogs are coming back.

 

[Rover]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

All true. And Democrats also ALWAYS try to work with Republicans no matter what. Amy Klobuchar for example. They are naturally consensus, common ground people who want Government to work. Also, back when all that was going on there were many many blue dog Democrats who swung a lot of power. Those people are Republicans now. Although the pendulum swung back a little this cycle and the blue dogs are coming back.

I think that's true of the older generation + Obama. I think the newer Dems, those who've come along since say 2010 are fully in tune with the depravity of the Republicans in both the Congress and state houses. Collectively the left wants blood (rhetorically speaking) and if they gain total control in some of these places I'd expect them to start shoving it where the sun don't shine to their knuckledragger counterparts, mostly because that's what their voters will demand.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

I don't know that they actually gave the powers to the governor. For all I know, the powers may have been existence for some time. But they are certainly proposing to take powers away from the governor.

As I said, they can do that. If people are offended by lame duck legislation like this, do something about it. Amend your constitution to prohibit legislation between election day and the day legislators are sworn in. But remember, that's going to work both ways.

You realize that doing something about it starts with people caring enough to get mad about it...right? And jeez, you really are obliterating this strawman that this has to do with all lame duck legislation--so impressive.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

I think that's true of the older generation + Obama. I think the newer Dems, those who've come along since say 2010 are fully in tune with the depravity of the Republicans in both the Congress and state houses. Collectively the left wants blood (rhetorically speaking) and if they gain total control in some of these places I'd expect them to start shoving it where the sun don't shine to their knuckledragger counterparts, mostly because that's what their voters will demand.

I just don't see how we get the 23 trillion back. And we need that money to pay for Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid. It's all gone. And I saw that they're saying the recession is going to hit in 2020. Just in time for the Democrat to be hamstrung on doing anything except saving the Economy again just like Obama.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Over and over and over again you fail to acknowledge that there's a difference. That's why people are upset with you. It has nothing to do with you striking a chord, or being above it all. It has everything to do with you blatantly ignoring the Elephant in the room.

"The elephant in the room?" What exactly is the elephant in the room? It seems like it's the type of lame duck legislation that Wisconsin is passing. For example, limiting the ability of the governor to bail out of the Obamacare lawsuit. Is that what you guys are upset about is the subject matter of the legislation? Because in my opinion, that's silly.

Why is it more egregious that, as a lame duck legislature, they choose to tie the governor's hands with respect to challenging Obamacare or appointing economic advisors, as opposed to passing legislation that forbids all abortions, for instance? Certainly the people of Wisconsin "spoke" in November to say that they don't want abortions banned.

Or is the "elephant" the timing of the legislation? What if the legislature passes the law in August because they see the handwriting on the wall that Walker has no chance to win? Is it more egregious that the legislature passes it after the election, but while the legislature is still legally vested with the authority to act? Because if that's the case, you're going to have to change the law to prohibit legislation after elections but before the new body is sworn in.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

You realize that doing something about it starts with people caring enough to get mad about it...right? And jeez, you really are obliterating this strawman that this has to do with all lame duck legislation--so impressive.

So, it really has nothing to do with it being lame duck legislation and "thwarting the will of the voters" and all that other nonsense people are spewing. It really is just about the subject matter of the legislation. The subject matter is unfavorable to the democrats and favorable to the republicans, at least in the short term, so, ergo, it's automatically horrible and an unconstitutional power grab.

Got it.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

"The elephant in the room?" What exactly is the elephant in the room? It seems like it's the type of lame duck legislation that Wisconsin is passing. For example, limiting the ability of the governor to bail out of the Obamacare lawsuit. Is that what you guys are upset about is the subject matter of the legislation? Because in my opinion, that's silly.

Why is it more egregious that, as a lame duck legislature, they choose to tie the governor's hands with respect to challenging Obamacare or appointing economic advisors, as opposed to passing legislation that forbids all abortions, for instance? Certainly the people of Wisconsin "spoke" in November to say that they don't want abortions banned.

Or is the "elephant" the timing of the legislation? What if the legislature passes the law in August because they see the handwriting on the wall that Walker has no chance to win? Is it more egregious that the legislature passes it after the election, but while the legislature is still legally vested with the authority to act? Because if that's the case, you're going to have to change the law to prohibit legislation after elections but before the new body is sworn in.

The problem remains again and again that Wisconsin has voted fully Democrat. And when the Republicans found out...they did then and only then what they could to make sure Democrats had almost no power. Doesn't anything appear unethical to you about this? Stupid question, I know.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

You are blind as a bat. Unbelievable anyone could be this ignorant.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

So, it really has nothing to do with it being lame duck legislation and "thwarting the will of the voters" and all that other nonsense people are spewing. It really is just about the subject matter of the legislation. The subject matter is unfavorable to the democrats and favorable to the republicans, at least in the short term, so, ergo, it's automatically horrible and an unconstitutional power grab.

Got it.

What the heck are you talking about? What makes the legislation horrible is that it's not reasonable for the powers vested in the governor's office to be determined by which party holds it...that's ****ed up. And as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, nobody has said it's illegal or unconstitutional. That you think one of those is required for something to be wrong, speaks volumes about you. As long as they're pwning the libt@ards amirite?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

The problem remains again and again that Wisconsin has voted fully Democrat. And when the Republicans found out...they did then and only then what they could to make sure Democrats had almost no power. Doesn't anything appear unethical to you about this? Stupid question, I know.

I assume you are talking about a gerrymandering problem? Yeah, I'm not in favor of gerrymandering. I've posted here before that I think all legislative districts should be drawn up in what I call normal or traditional geometric shapes, to the extent possible, with equal population in each.

 

[aparch]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

He seems hung up on Wisconsin, yet continues to ignore Michigan. That wasn't "lame duck legislation."

That's Indian giving.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

I assume you are talking about a gerrymandering problem? Yeah, I'm not in favor of gerrymandering. I've posted here before that I think all legislative districts should be drawn up in what I call normal or traditional geometric shapes, to the extent possible, with equal population in each.

No, I am not talking about gerrymandering.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

What the heck are you talking about? What makes the legislation horrible is that it's not reasonable for the powers vested in the governor's office to be determined by which party holds it...that's ****ed up. And as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, nobody has said it's illegal or unconstitutional. That you think one of those is required for something to be wrong, speaks volumes about you. As long as they're pwning the libt@ards amirite?

Ok, first, if the legislation is not illegal or unconstitutional, then legally they can do it. But I agree that doesn't answer the questions you pose as to whether it's "horrible" or "wrong."

I posted earlier I think the legislation is both short-sighted and unwise (certainly from a political sense) because control of legislatures and governors offices always changes, and sooner or later the Republicans may be on a position where they hold the governor's office and Dems hold the legislature, and at that point I bet they're going to wish the governor still had those powers. Furthermore, why give Dems running for the legislature something to run on. But as I said earlier, the R's in Wisconsin have apparently decided to take short term gain at the expense of possible long term loss. That's their gamble, not mine. It's not the way I would have gone.

Does that make it "horrible" or "wrong?" I don't think it's very smart. Whether it turns out to be "wrong," politically, largely depends upon the outcome of future elections in Wisconsin, and I have no idea what will happen there.

Is it "wrong" morally? From the standards of common decency or fairness, sure, probably. From the standards of politics, not likely.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

I assume you are talking about a gerrymandering problem? Yeah, I'm not in favor of gerrymandering. I've posted here before that I think all legislative districts should be drawn up in what I call normal or traditional geometric shapes, to the extent possible, with equal population in each.

It's pretty amusing reading this after your hand-wavy "Don't like it? Win back the legislature" post. Given the chasm between the WI Democrat's modest majority of the popular votes and their tiny minority of seats they hold, you must realize that winning is impossible at this point without judicial intervention on the district lines.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Ok, first, if the legislation is not illegal or unconstitutional, then legally they can do it. But I agree that doesn't answer the questions you pose as to whether it's "horrible" or "wrong."

I posted earlier I think the legislation is both short-sighted and unwise (certainly from a political sense) because control of legislatures and governors offices always changes, and sooner or later the Republicans may be on a position where they hold the governor's office and Dems hold the legislature, and at that point I bet they're going to wish the governor still had those powers. Furthermore, why give Dems running for the legislature something to run on. But as I said earlier, the R's in Wisconsin have apparently decided to take short term gain at the expense of possible long term loss. That's their gamble, not mine. It's not the way I would have gone.

Does that make it "horrible" or "wrong?" I don't think it's very smart. Whether it turns out to be "wrong," politically, largely depends upon the outcome of future elections in Wisconsin, and I have no idea what will happen there.

Is it "wrong" morally? From the standards of common decency or fairness, sure, probably. From the standards of politics, not likely.

Still missing. You're pretty dense.