It leaves Trump with doing what he's doing now, using the Executive's considerable power to wreck whatever he likes, plus executive orders and his willingness to ignore any law that doesn't suit him.

With a simple majority they could decide to do away with the filibuster

That seems to be dependent on a dramatic misconception of how American politics works.

It seems that only a very small demographic are observing this type of information, and I presume they're all dem voters anyway.

Everyone will ignore all of this and vote Republican because of the price of eggs or something.

that's not the problem if dipshit vetoes everything.. it would be the lack of votes in both chambers needed to override one.

sweep the senate races--all of them, including ones that are basically 'gimmies' for magats..

and then you'd also need to have the flaky ones with a (d) by their names on your side, and that is not even remotely a 'sure thing'.

that's just for the senate super-majority..

with projections saying a very slim majority being possible--perhaps even 'probable'... democrats would have to over-perform in the house races like never before seen to get up to that two-thirds advantage there.

and all that has to be accomplished despite all the shit magats are doing to undermine the vote.

Being older than dirt doesn't seem to stop them from trying to get reelected.

Right, I wasn’t saying this was a realistic scenario. Just saying that the minimum number of seats they would have to have is not necessarily the same as the number of votes.

I'm sure Epstein owned a lot of couches...

you also need the super-majority in the house for veto overrides.

it's actually 'easier' to impeach and convict a president than it is to override one of their vetoes.

the couch-lover has to go first, immediately followed by the spray-tanned dipshit.

and the safeguard previously-installed to prevent that particular chain-of-events, is mike johnson.

in the next session, it'll probably be.. ::gags:: jeffries. or so much in-fighting for the post that it'll make the current magat house leadership look sane and they never get to actually voting on any impeachment charges.

Woah. Sorry, I didn't think he'd be a petty bitch until now. He's always been a moral leader, but maybe now I might think again.

I find it hilarious that his biggest supporters hurt more than me. I want to help them, but they vote against me.

Mens butts specifically, don't leave that out!

*always

JD would crash and burn. He has no cachet in the magat minds.

His entire life has been, honestly.

A lot of what he's doing is only possible because he has a complicit legislative branch to allow it. It doesn't take a supermajority to stop that.

Aww shucks, guess I'll vote Republican then to keep the big boy in the white house from having a meltdown.
Sike, I am not even murrican, but if I was I would be voting for whatever is most likely to give him an aneurysm.

Who cares? At best you'll get nothing done. That is better than getting bad things done IMO.

The people impacted in the alternative scenario.

His value of raping children?

If they do that, don't they then also have enough power to impeach?

That's just unrealistic. In what world would the courts strike down Trump's attempts to end birthright citizenship, but give him an unconstitutional 3rd term?

It makes no sense looking at the court's record. They do pretty often disagree with Trump and it pisses him off

The type to do that are also the type to blame the sitting president and will vote against the president's party.

Basically if eggs are expensive come 2028 those people will blame the president and therefore the Republicans

So, they will override his veto

That depends on whether the Democrats win every senate seat that's contested this year. If not, they'll probably need some fence crossers in the senate to reach the two thirds majority to override the veto.

And not paying workers.

Lack of values more like

the great thing about vetos is they can be overridden. they might just push him over the edge to oblivion

And in the next presidential election you can run on Trump getting nothing done in his last years.

And in turn, they'll keep impeaching you.

The first in a long line of vice-ious values, each more heinous than the last.

There is a subtle but important difference between blowing smoke up his ass and putting your tongue up his ass. I don't think there was any smoke in the room with the tech ceos.

And Trump will win again.

Democrats shouldn't try to pass any legislation in that situation; it would be enough to do something the Republican Congress hasn't done these past two years: control the actions of the executive branch.To put a stop to his unilateral excesses, to effectively prosecute corruption, to demand that he comply with the laws and regulations that limit his power, and to make him comply with court orders. That would be a job well done and full-time, without needing to pass any laws.

We had a king Veto for a short while. He became shorter.

Won’t be necessary, dems won’t get anything done because the parliamentarian.

Of course he will. Dems should expect nothing less. So pass great legislation, let him veto it, and run against that in 2028.

in the meantime, use the time to investigate EVERYBODY. Put their crimes and arrogance on record, and expose the entire MAGA party for the treasonous, criminal, pedophiles they ALL are.

Exactly. They will never control the batshit crazy that is going on in the other branches of government, but if they can gain solid, responsible control of both Houses, they can at least get Congress back on their Constitutional path, and then start using their Constitutional powers to get the other branches in line.

Psych

He’s been impeached three times already. It doesn’t carry any weight anymore.

Making the Rs vote against Medicaid for all, and having Trump ultimately veto it would look very bad for them. Medicaid for all has broad support now.

(Yes, I know it's Medicare for all, but it should be Medicaid for all, most people don't know the difference.)

Medicare for the elderly and disabled.

Medicaid for the peasantry who qualify (and we'll make sure as many as people as possible dont)

In general, I disagree with empty, inconsequential political gestures—and even more so in this case. Something like this might not enjoy as much consensus among Democratic lawmakers as you think; it would shift the debate toward economic issues and face opposition from doctors and hospital administrators. I’m not saying that’s reason enough to avoid such a move when it could actually be implemented; I’m just saying the debate might not unfold the way you expect. I believe that focusing on enforcing existing laws and mandates could be more effective.

This is kinda how it goes every mid-term election. I’m used to it by now. The way the US government is designed is hostile to progress and dragging its feet the whole time. The few moments when any party gets multiple seats of power, they sprint as far and fast as they can before the gears get clogged again.

You gotta just play the hand you’re dealt. If democrats win a majority, but not a supermajority, their job is to at least stop things from getting worse for a while.

Obviously

Can you expand on this more, or provide a source? I tried to look it up but I still don't quite understand what role this plays.

When my family was poor a couple decades ago we were on Medicaid and it was so simple compared to how complicated Medicare seems to be, including having copays, and medications generally not being covered, and different "Parts" (not to mention "Advantage"). We were able to take our kids to the doctor and get them meds, everything just worked with no extra work or money on our part.

I've said Medicare for all seems like a scam and what we really need is Medicaid for all for years now, nice to see I ain't the only one.

It is hostile to any progress which is perceived as the left. Anything the corporates want, or the right wants, gets breezed through. See the last two years, the Obamacare vs. Public option debate. The option to the right always wins.

But don't you dare raise that minimum wage by $0.25. Some Dem with go thumbs down.

The few moments when any party gets multiple seats of power, they sprint as far and fast as they can before the gears get clogged again.

Republicans, certainly.

But I was around for the Obama first term. He was terminally West Wing brained. Fully convinced he was going to get 70+ Senators on every vote, because Lindsey Graham and John McCain and Susan Collins were his close friends.

Fucking chump.

You gotta just play the hand you’re dealt. If democrats win a majority, but not a supermajority, their job is to at least stop things from getting worse for a while.

I predict that Congress will find it doesn't have a majority to pass any useful legislation domestically.

But what they will have is an overwhelming Pro-Israel majority. Also, just enough votes to ban transgender athletes from women's sports at a national level

So what? So Democrats will at least be a check on the lawless corruption and incompetence of the Trump administration. That's what the other 2 co-equal branches of government are supposed to do! Fuck Republicans and their kissing the ring of our wannabe mad king...