Obama vetoes bill, Mitch McConnell blames him for the override

[Donal]

Of course he does.

What a shock

If he wants Congress to vote against victims of terrorism, which is politically difficult to say the least,

Ya, we really should expect them to do what is right.

he has to engage them much earlier to either get the bill quashed from the beginning or amended in such a way as to make it practical.

He addressed it when the bills were first introduced on the floor. He was very clear about his opposition. If anyone in Congress was having trouble, they could have had a meeting with him. Of course, House and Senate leadership have met with POTUS since April several times

Once a bill gains momentum, it is politically difficult to stop.

Especially when it is being driven by feelings and not reason.

This is actually a perfect example of one of the ways in which Obama has been a bad President. Obamacare suffered from his lack of engagement in similar fashion.

That is a complete lie. The Obama administration met with GOP leadership and agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts as well as compromised on several aspects of the Affordable Care Act. It was the GOP who lost their spines when the crazies grabbed power in the aprty and backed out of al lthe good faith negotiations.

That being said, I actually think the bill is a good idea.

Ya, it pisses off the black guy.

There will be some blowback, but I think it's worth it.

Ya, but people who know what they are talking about don't.

The world can function just fine with the removal of foreign sovereign immunity for acts of terrorism by a state.

If only we had some way of dealing with foreign governments that directly sponsor violent acts against our citizens and resources. Like some sort of Department for Defending us or something.

Admittedly, it raises the risk for politicians, which is probably why they're the ones who are concerned.

And diplomats, and Marines providing security, and Americans doing business in foreign countries etc etc

If there were actual evidence that the Saudi government supported the 9/11 attacks materially, we would be well within our rights to take real diplomatic and military action. This pitty-pat law suit garbage is just some way to harass brown people that only seems good to people who have no clue about the world outside of the block they grew up on. Just more of this Ayn Rand fantasy garbage that lawsuits and business transactions can take the place of actual societies.

 

[CORed]

Ok, it's official. Our Congress is a bunch of flaming morons. Term limits, anyone?

The most likely result of term limits will be a different bunch of flaming morons.

 

[Trebuchet]

The Donald recently proposed a constitutional amendment for term limits for Congress. I remember the last time the Republicans wanted that, about 1993. It was part of the Contract on America. In 1994, a Republican even defeated a sitting Speaker of the House using that as his sole campaign point.

After taking control in 1994, they somehow lost all interest in that. Even the Speaker's 1994 opponent ran for more terms than he promised. Term limits are a winner, unless you actually get elected.

Sorry for the digression, but term limits are kind of a hot button for me.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The Donald recently proposed a constitutional amendment for term limits for Congress. I remember the last time the Republicans wanted that, about 1993. It was part of the Contract on America. In 1994, a Republican even defeated a sitting Speaker of the House using that as his sole campaign point.

After taking control in 1994, they somehow lost all interest in that. Even the Speaker's 1994 opponent ran for more terms than he promised. Term limits are a winner, unless you actually get elected.

Sorry for the digression, but term limits are kind of a hot button for me.

It's so silly; term limits in a congressional system. Why would you have that? On positions of particular authority, sure, but on chairs in a chamber of lawmaking? It's just plain silly.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's so silly; term limits in a congressional system. Why would you have that? On positions of particular authority, sure, but on chairs in a chamber of lawmaking? It's just plain silly.

If the goal is to render the government useless, then it is a good strategy.

 

[Donal]

I don't think term limits are the answer, but once someone is in the legislature, it is nearly impossible to remove them, no matter how awful they are.

Being the incumbent is a huge advantage. Even when people say "I hate all them Congress critters!" what they generally mean is "I hate all those other Congress critters. The guy who looks and talks like me is one of the good ones."

This will have to be fixed at the state level.