Posted on Dec 3, 2019
8
8
0
The man constantly lies .Trump " The do nothing democrats are hurting our Country" . Meanwhile the Dems have passed nearly 400 bills so far this year, though only 70 bills have been signed into law by TrumpKKK
So-Called 'Do Nothing Democrats' Have Actually Passed Close To 400 Bills Without GOP-Led Senate...
Posted from hillreporter.com
Democrats
Congress
Donald Trump
Republicans
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 9
9
9
0
You see, we have this thing called a bicameral legislature, which generally keeps crazy things from becoming law. We saw this with the 40-odd attempts at repealing Obamacare... bet you didn't mind those dying on Harry Reid's desk.
Quite a number of those bills are worthy of consideration by the Senate. Others were clear partisan bills done at the beginning of the session to show their constituents that they were "doing something".
The thing that drives me crazy is that after 13 years and counting, we STILL can't pass a budget using normal business and on time.
Quite a number of those bills are worthy of consideration by the Senate. Others were clear partisan bills done at the beginning of the session to show their constituents that they were "doing something".
The thing that drives me crazy is that after 13 years and counting, we STILL can't pass a budget using normal business and on time.
(9)
(0)
SSgt Ray Stone
yeah he spends majority of his time golfing at tax payers expense and now crying to foreign countries about impeachment though the Dems are do nothing. Obamacare as I said before which is originally a conservative proposal, in which now Republicans hate because of its name have yet to propose a replacement
(2)
(0)
CW4 Guy Butler
SPC Gordon B Rice Not even close...
https://presidentialgolftracker.com/trump-vs-obama-golf-games/
(Yeah, there’s a tracker for that. Who knew?)
https://presidentialgolftracker.com/trump-vs-obama-golf-games/
(Yeah, there’s a tracker for that. Who knew?)
It’s been two years and 91 days that President Trump has been in office (we can’t believe it either!). We’ve spent these last two years tracking his golfing habits, and comparing …
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Actually it can according to the Origination Clause. The Senate cannot originate only a bill to raise revenue.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
The House has put forward a slew of strongly partisan bills with no real effort at compromise. So if you consider "dog and pony shows" the business of the nation, SSgt Ray Stone, I guess you're right. I don't.
The Senate has failed to bring most of these bills to the floor because they lack enough partisan support to even get close to a compromise. It is the equivalent of a store putting a $1,000 price tag on an item for which a customer is only willing to pay $5. There is no point in haggling with that big a difference. And that type of conduct is also not helping to conduct the business of the nation.
Right now we have two parties that have stopped representing the people. They both put party ahead of constituents. But even worse, political party is replacing religion. People are letting their political party's position determine their position on an issue. The wagon is leading the horse. There is no way a thinking individual agrees with position of their political party down to the last minute detail, but you would never know it from social media or casual conversation.
The Senate has failed to bring most of these bills to the floor because they lack enough partisan support to even get close to a compromise. It is the equivalent of a store putting a $1,000 price tag on an item for which a customer is only willing to pay $5. There is no point in haggling with that big a difference. And that type of conduct is also not helping to conduct the business of the nation.
Right now we have two parties that have stopped representing the people. They both put party ahead of constituents. But even worse, political party is replacing religion. People are letting their political party's position determine their position on an issue. The wagon is leading the horse. There is no way a thinking individual agrees with position of their political party down to the last minute detail, but you would never know it from social media or casual conversation.
(5)
(0)
SSgt Ray Stone
You say both parties don't represent the people. Either though a certain party are passing bills to move the Country ahead such as background checks mandatory on all gun sales, reauthorization for the Violence Against Women Act, a bill to raise the minimum wage etc .
While at the same time the cry baby is complaining to foreign countries about impeachment and taxing us with his excessive golfing. But hey as they say OPINIONS are like assholes
While at the same time the cry baby is complaining to foreign countries about impeachment and taxing us with his excessive golfing. But hey as they say OPINIONS are like assholes
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SSgt Ray Stone - Let's start off on the right foot. I'm not going to engage in incendiary language. So can we leave out insults like "crybaby," vulgar language, or dialogue with a chip on our shoulder?
Of the bills you have mentioned... The actual bills are much more "complicated" than your characterization of them. As an example....
_I'm sure you could find overwhelming bipartisan support for universal background checks. If that was the only thing in the Enhanced Background Checks Act (EBCA). But it is not.
1) The most recent bill extends the waiting period from 3 business days to 10. If a woman finds out she has a stalker, (particularly one with arrests and/or convictions for stalking or violence against women), I don't want her to have to wait two weeks before she can protect herself. I'm not thrilled that she has to wait three days, but she can probably live with a three day disruption to her life that keeps her safe even though unarmed.
2) There was a provision in the bill that precluded notification of ICE if an illegal alien with applied for a permit. There was no language that allowed ICE to be notified even if the illegal immigrant was under a deportation order for a violent criminal act.
3) Loaning a firearm to a victim of domestic violence, for the waiting period until they could arm themselves, would become illegal; and could result in a prison sentence for the lender. Even if the borrower was protected by a restraining order, AND NEVER ACTUALLY USED THE WEAPON.
I support universal background checks, but cannot support the Enhanced Background checks Act as passed by the House. But I also think that the Senate should have taken the bill up, and the two legislative bodies SHOULD have seen if the could work out the kinks in conference. They didn't. So neither body and neither party served the business of the people.
I can go into similar detail on the other bills, and probably on any others that the Senate did not take up, but I think I've demonstrated my point, even if you don't agree with my reasoning.
Of the bills you have mentioned... The actual bills are much more "complicated" than your characterization of them. As an example....
_I'm sure you could find overwhelming bipartisan support for universal background checks. If that was the only thing in the Enhanced Background Checks Act (EBCA). But it is not.
1) The most recent bill extends the waiting period from 3 business days to 10. If a woman finds out she has a stalker, (particularly one with arrests and/or convictions for stalking or violence against women), I don't want her to have to wait two weeks before she can protect herself. I'm not thrilled that she has to wait three days, but she can probably live with a three day disruption to her life that keeps her safe even though unarmed.
2) There was a provision in the bill that precluded notification of ICE if an illegal alien with applied for a permit. There was no language that allowed ICE to be notified even if the illegal immigrant was under a deportation order for a violent criminal act.
3) Loaning a firearm to a victim of domestic violence, for the waiting period until they could arm themselves, would become illegal; and could result in a prison sentence for the lender. Even if the borrower was protected by a restraining order, AND NEVER ACTUALLY USED THE WEAPON.
I support universal background checks, but cannot support the Enhanced Background checks Act as passed by the House. But I also think that the Senate should have taken the bill up, and the two legislative bodies SHOULD have seen if the could work out the kinks in conference. They didn't. So neither body and neither party served the business of the people.
I can go into similar detail on the other bills, and probably on any others that the Senate did not take up, but I think I've demonstrated my point, even if you don't agree with my reasoning.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google