You are absolutely right, it was a bad bill to sign. He lied about not signing a bill like this again. It's ok to support Trump, and disagree with some of his decision making, we are all human after all.
He can't just stop it, they have a supermajority in the senate on that bill. He made the best move possible. He's not some supreme leader like Kamala wants to be... If he simply vetoed it, they would've passed it anyways with 2/3 of congress and majority of senate.
Ok, see I get that. So he tried to underline the problems in it to at least try and get some stuff changed instead of vetoing it and having no chance of anything getting fixed?
There was nothing he could do. If he vetoed it, then they would simply override his veto, because of the super majority.
The best he could do was the impoundment act, where he basically forces the senate and congress to explain to the american people why so much spending, like for example 10 mill to pakistani gender study, and force them to look bad if they vote for each item that trump redlined. This was the sort story
It's OK to be confused, but you shouldn't assert an opinion or make judgment on others until you've done your homework and have put yourself in their shoes.
I got frustrated the other night from pedes jumping to conclusions on it and not taking this advice to heart, so I made this thread to at least help educate people on it.
To answer your question, he is making choices based on realities, not pipe dreams. He formally communicated his displeasure with specifics of the pork and hand-outs to foreign countries, while taking full advantage of the loud Democrat support for larger stimulus checks.
it had a supermajority...his veto wouldn't have stopped it, but "red lining" it forces congress to have to vote again
You are absolutely right, it was a bad bill to sign. He lied about not signing a bill like this again. It's ok to support Trump, and disagree with some of his decision making, we are all human after all.
He can't just stop it, they have a supermajority in the senate on that bill. He made the best move possible. He's not some supreme leader like Kamala wants to be... If he simply vetoed it, they would've passed it anyways with 2/3 of congress and majority of senate.
Ok, see I get that. So he tried to underline the problems in it to at least try and get some stuff changed instead of vetoing it and having no chance of anything getting fixed?
Exactly. He cut out all the bullshit foreign add, upped the stim to $2000, and he added in to repeal section 230 in as well. Genius move.
Thank you, I figured I wasn’t getting the whole picture. The others on here who commented helped out too, I appreciate y’all.
There was nothing he could do. If he vetoed it, then they would simply override his veto, because of the super majority. The best he could do was the impoundment act, where he basically forces the senate and congress to explain to the american people why so much spending, like for example 10 mill to pakistani gender study, and force them to look bad if they vote for each item that trump redlined. This was the sort story
*shouldn't have
Ah, thank you, I apologize.
Yes.
It's OK to be confused, but you shouldn't assert an opinion or make judgment on others until you've done your homework and have put yourself in their shoes.
I got frustrated the other night from pedes jumping to conclusions on it and not taking this advice to heart, so I made this thread to at least help educate people on it.
https://thedonald.win/p/11RNy24vN3/for-a-better-understanding-of-th/
Grammar-spelling police checking in: "shouldn't have"
To answer your question, he is making choices based on realities, not pipe dreams. He formally communicated his displeasure with specifics of the pork and hand-outs to foreign countries, while taking full advantage of the loud Democrat support for larger stimulus checks.
Didn’t he sign the same bill that was proposed a week ago? I feel like everyone on the site was saying he should veto it.
He was asking a question dude