566

President Donald Trump threatened to veto every piece of legislation put forward during the second half of his administration if Democrats flip control of the House or Senate during next month’s midterm elections.

“Well, I think the Republicans are going to win. But if there was, you call it gridlock, what happens is I veto everything,” Trump told reporters Friday morning while speaking on the South Lawn. “And then the Democrats come and they want to make a deal. So we’ll work it out.”

Historical precedent and polling data suggest Democrats are on the cusp of flipping at least the House next month and possibly the Senate, due to public frustration over the Iran war and high costs of living.

So, they will override his veto

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] BooBees@fedinsfw.app 93 points 1 week ago

Dems will likely do well, but I don’t think they’ll get 2/3rd majority and republicans for sure aren’t gonna help Dems, they’re too far gone.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Dems will likely do well, but I don’t think they’ll get 2/3rd majority and republicans for sure aren’t gonna help Dems, they’re too far gone.

Every progressive policy that passes the House and Senate but gets vetoed by trump becomes a reason to vote for a Democratic President in 2028. Trump would almost be doing the Democrats a favor if he vetoed everything. Bluedog Democrats in Congress could vote for all kinds of progressive things with the knowledge they won't pass into law. They'd be able to score all the political points with their constituency without suffering any fallout from their corporate donors. Imagine if, in the next 2 years, Democrats in Congress pass:

  • Universal Healthcare
  • Federal Minimum wage increase
  • Cost ceilings on residential electric bills
  • Slashed defense budget
  • Increase in Social Security trust fund
  • Resolution ending military actions
  • Epstein file transparency laws

All of these trump would veto, of course, but that leaves the GOP significantly worse off in the next election.

[-] im_fine_sandy@nord.pub 8 points 6 days ago

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.

[-] arrow74@lemmy.zip 4 points 6 days ago

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

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

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

Is it? This coming midterm election's prime issue is affordability.

It seems that only a very small demographic are observing this type of information

Most voters are paying attention to affordability issues. Increasing American incomes, lowering medical costs, controlling residential electricity costs, stopping the stupid war in Iran, all speak to affordability.

[-] obviouspornalt@fedinsfw.app 7 points 6 days ago

democrats would have to win 20 seats currently held by Republicans as well as hold all their current seats. mathematically, this is possible, there are currently 22 Republican seats contested this election. current polling, however, shows the likely outcome is democrats get +3 seats.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

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.

[-] protist@retrofed.com 5 points 6 days ago

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

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 days ago

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

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 69 points 1 week ago

And idiotic low-info voters (many of them are self-styled "independents", LOL) will then blame the Democrats for not doing enough and send in Republicans again.

[-] epicurean_toast@lemmus.org 4 points 5 days ago

I feel like most voters with low civic knowledge assume the president does everything. You know, the "Biden made inflation happen" types.

[-] auzy1@lemmy.world 42 points 1 week ago

They're not low info voters. They're generally just closeted far right whingers.

[-] areakode@riskeratspizza.com 12 points 6 days ago

Who will wholeheartedly accept progressive policies... unless you tell them that this is what leftists want...

[-] Montagge@lemmy.zip 4 points 6 days ago

That Venn diagram is almost a circle

[-] BooBees@fedinsfw.app 22 points 1 week ago

That’s definitely a high likelihood, but there’s also a high likelihood that republicans outright refuse to seat Dems elected, Trump refuses to leave and claims he won a third term (deserves one), and the courts will let it all happen, resulting in arrests of Dems and the loss of the democratic system as we know it. That means a power vacuum will emerge inevitably, whatever the end result of this coup, and power vacuums almost always end up with a more authoritarian leader in place and less democracy.

[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 10 points 6 days ago

If this or anything close to it happens, the only recourse is violence.

[-] BooBees@fedinsfw.app 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

That’s the power vacuum part. The emerging authoritarian is whoever manages to put down the violence typically

[-] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

There's no real economic incentive for opposition.

[-] BooBees@fedinsfw.app 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It’s not the promise of profits that usually takes it there, it’s typically hunger, desperation, and giving up on waiting for the system to step in and do something to change what’s obviously led to the stagnant and corrosive economic system that’s leading many to that hunger and desperation.

[-] WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 days ago

“Once it’s too late, our only recourse is the thing we could have done all along to stop it from getting to this point.”

[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 2 points 6 days ago

Yeah, it's wild how unwilling people are to go die for a cause, huh?

[-] WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Especially when they spent the last century dining out on a national myth of “give me liberty or give me death” and being belligerent fucking assholes about “freedom,” crowing about how they’re the BEST IN THE WORLD at defending it, insisted it was necessary to let children die in school shootings all the fucking time in order to be able to handle exactly this scenario- and also everyone else is a bunch of weaklings who only exist because Americans put their lives on the line to defend democracy, and fuck everyone else for even questioning it.

Yeah. That’s wild.

[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 2 points 5 days ago

Just because our grandparents held onto a mantra doesn't mean we do. Expecting us to be enthusiastic about dying for an ideology that we never agreed with in the first place is just as wild a take. I don't personally know anyone who believed any of that garbage they fed us in elementary school beyond... well, elementary school. It pretty quickly became clear that it's all propaganda. The folks who didn't recognize that are the same ones who're okay with the current status quo.

[-] WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago

YOU are okay with the current status quo or you’d be doing something about it.

It’s fine, get defensive if you want, but the truth is you are way too comfortable and refuse to risk that comfort to fix the problems you pay lip service to opposing.

[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 3 points 5 days ago

I think you're equating "doing something about it" with violence, and if that's the case, then no, I'm not 'doing something about it', but I'm not doing nothing, either. However, I don't feel the need to justify my activism to a stranger on the internet, so I'm going to leave it at that.

[-] DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Maybe it's time for some of them to leave the US.

[-] arrow74@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

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

this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2026
566 points (99.1% liked)

politics

31633 readers
2187 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS