Philosophical Vegan Forum

That used to be the case, but starting with Andrew Jackson, Presidents started vetoing stuff that goes against their agenda/worldview. There's good and bad to it of course but hey.

Constitutionality is more the Supreme Court's job, though they sometimes rule against something due to politics rather than if something is unconstitutional.

So how likely this make it that pro-nuclear bills will be vetoed?

I don't think so. McCain was more liberal than most Republicans so he probably had an easier time discussing with Bernie on these issues. Also, this quote doesn't take into account anything else. What issue were they discussing? Did it get passed? We have to know the context.

If a moderate Republican has an easy time discussing with Bernie, then it will also be very easy for him to negotiate with Democrats who have a majority in the House, and are likely to get a majority in the Senate.

They were discussing a VA reform bill. You can read about it here: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/deali ... der-wraps/

Again, look at his track record. Bernie is pretty uncompromising. Most of his bills didn't even get passed through Congress.

He may be a bit uncompromising, but he is compromising on certain issues.

Sorry man, but my hands are tied. You think I would want to vote for Trump?

In terms of numbers, I agree with Bernie on more issues, but in terms of importance of the issues, I, unfortunately, side with Trump. I hate him, but this issue is much too important for the world to possibly overlook. I'm sorry dude.

And again, remember what we said about Tribalism. Unless the US were to overhaul its system to be able to give third parties a bigger chance, as it stands,

If you vote for Gary Johnson and get him to 5% of the vote, he can participate in the TV debates.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:42 am So how likely this make it that pro-nuclear bills will be vetoed?

I think you fucked up the grammar there.
DId you mean to ask how likely Bernie will veto the pro-nuclear bills? Oh, with someone like Bernie who calls for a moratorium on nuclear? i'd say quite likely.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:42 am If a moderate Republican has an easy time discussing with Bernie, then it will also be very easy for him to negotiate with Democrats who have a majority in the House, and are likely to get a majority in the Senate.

Are most Republicans as level-headed as McCain?

Can't forget that Republicans are usually at least half of the Congress.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:42 amThey were discussing a VA reform bill. You can read about it here: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/deali ... der-wraps/

Veteran Affairs bills are pretty easy to pass (at least in America). I'm not surprised that he was able to get that to be law.

Still, can't forget the fact that most of his proposals don't become anything. Did you look at the list I sent you? It lists the bills he proposed and their progress to becoming a law. About 90% of them didn't even get passed the Introduction phase.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:42 am He may be a bit uncompromising, but he is compromising on certain issues.

Is he compromising on the more important issues, such as healthcare or college tuition?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:42 am If you vote for Gary Johnson and get him to 5% of the vote, he can participate in the TV debates.

Doesn't mean he'll win. John B. Anderson? Ross Perot?

Red wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:52 am

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:42 am So how likely this make it that pro-nuclear bills will be vetoed?

I think you fucked up the grammar there.
DId you mean to ask how likely Bernie will veto the pro-nuclear bills? Oh, with someone like Bernie who calls for a moratorium on nuclear? i'd say quite likely.

But what about the Supreme Court?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:42 am Are most Republicans as level-headed as McCain?

No, but some of them are, so he's likely to get them on his side, as well as most of the Democrats.

Veteran Affairs bills are pretty easy to pass (at least in America). I'm not surprised that he was able to get that to be law.

Still, can't forget the fact that most of his proposals don't become anything. Did you look at the list I sent you? It lists the bills he proposed and their progress to becoming a law. About 90% of them didn't even get passed the Introduction phase.

What's the average percentage?

Is he compromising on the more important issues, such as healthcare or college tuition?

Yes on healthcare. Don't know about college tuition.

Doesn't mean he'll win. John B. Anderson? Ross Perot?

No, but he'll have a better chance of winning, and can hold candidates to account on environmental issues.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:59 am But what about the Supreme Court?

What about it?

No, it can not override a Presidential Veto, if that's what you're asking, only Congress can do that. 2/3s of Congress.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:59 am No, but some of them are, so he's likely to get them on his side, as well as most of the Democrats.

Don't be so naive Blue.

Must we forget that Republicans are probably just as uncompromising as Sanders and most Democrats? Again, Human Tribalism. Remember how the Republicans are the creationist party of the US? Doesn't sound too reasonable to me. You're being unrealistically charitable here, and I think you know it.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:59 am What's the average percentage?

I don't think I can get a percentage, but seriously, scroll through it for yourself. See how few proposals get considered.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:59 am Yes on healthcare. Don't know about college tuition.

No, I don't think so, given his track record. Given how contentious these issues are amongst both voters and politicians, I don't see Bernie being willing to compromise on these issues.

I mean, college tuition, for me, is an easy compromise. Only make things like STEM and Med School free. That might still be very hard to pass (I'd probably have to cut med school from it) but it's much easier to pass than getting all tuition to be free.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:59 am No, but he'll have a better chance of winning, and can hold candidates to account on environmental issues.

How do you figure?

Red wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:16 pm What about it?

No, it can not override a Presidential Veto, if that's what you're asking, only Congress can do that. 2/3s of Congress.

That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if they will block anti-nuclear proposals.

Must we forget that Republicans are probably just as uncompromising as Sanders and most Democrats? Again, Human Tribalism. Remember how the Republicans are the creationist party of the US? Doesn't sound too reasonable to me. You're being unrealistically charitable here, and I think you know it.

I'm talking about the ones that are reasonable, not the whole party. There are still many conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans who can work together on some issues.

I don't think I can get a percentage, but seriously, scroll through it for yourself. See how few proposals get considered.

But how does this compare to others?

I mean, college tuition, for me, is an easy compromise. Only make things like STEM and Med School free. That might still be very hard to pass (I'd probably have to cut med school from it) but it's much easier to pass than getting all tuition to be free.

I think he could support a compromise on this issue, however, if he becomes President and doesn't do this, I'll eat my words.

How do you figure?

Because debating will give him a bigger platform.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:31 pm That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if they will block anti-nuclear proposals.

I don't think so, but still, it doesn't matter. Bernie being able to veto the nuclear proposals is more than enough to shoot down any hopes of bringing in Nuclear.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:31 pm I'm talking about the ones that are reasonable, not the whole party. There are still many conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans who can work together on some issues.

How many would that be though? They might be able to compromise on more affordable healthcare, but they almost definitley would not have enough votes to override a Bernie veto.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:31 pm But how does this compare to others?

Such as?

Bernie does not have a monopoly on uncompromisation.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:31 pm I think he could support a compromise on this issue, however, if he becomes President and doesn't do this, I'll eat my words.

Let's hope it never reaches that and someone else wins the nomination.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:31 pmBecause debating will give him a bigger platform.

Anderson and Perot were also on the televised debates, and did they win?

Red wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:35 pm I don't think so, but still, it doesn't matter. Bernie being able to veto the nuclear proposals is more than enough to shoot down any hopes of bringing in Nuclear.

Doesn't the United States already have nuclear power? I mean, Bernie might be able to roll back further progress for nuclear, but I doubt he'll be able to get rid of nuclear altogether. Not saying that this is the best thing that could happen, but it probably won't be quite as bad as it could be.

How many would that be though?

I don't know. Your guess is probably better than mine.

They might be able to compromise on more affordable healthcare, but they almost definitley would not have enough votes to override a Bernie veto.

I don't understand what you mean by overriding a Bernie veto.

quote]Such as?

Bernie does not have a monopoly on uncompromisation.
[/quote]

What about his opponents? Booker, for instance, as you support him. How compromising is he in comparison to Bernie?

Actually, can you find out about Beto O'Rourke while you're at it? There's talk of him running for President, and I like him a lot. Not sure what his position on nuclear is.

Let's hope it never reaches that and someone else wins the nomination.

I am kind of hoping that Booker wins now, because at least then we'd be supporting the same person. But yeah, it Berns when I pee, so I feel the Bern.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:31 pmBecause debating will give him a bigger platform.

Anderson and Perot were also on the televised debates, and did they win?
[/quote]

You never should have ventured out of your discussions with Teo as your logic is not strong enough for this type of discussion. Does finding a 100 year old smoker negate the claim that smoking is bad for you? It would be unusual for somebody on a televised debate to not perform well in an election. That does not mean all people on televised debates perform well in all elections.

Okay, so I made this clear to Red on Discord, but I guess I'd better make it clear to everybody else on the forum as well. The above paragraph is a joke. It's a reference that I know Red and at least one other person (and I've yet to see any evidence that it is more than one person) will get.

Aside from that, I think my argument can actually be made a bit clearer so here it goes: Anderson and Perot may not have won the elections in which they stood for, however, these are just recent examples. Things have changed since then. As Harold Wilson is believed to have said, "A week is a long time in politics". The dissatisfaction with the two parties has grown in recent years, and it isn't unlikely that the Libertarian Party could take one of their places.

As well as that, depending on which area you live in, there may be nothing to lose by voting for them. If Bernie is the Democratic nominee, and your area is likely to turn blue regardless, it wouldn't be a bad idea to vote Libertarian as a form of protest against his anti-nuclear policies.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:49 pm Doesn't the United States already have nuclear power? I mean, Bernie might be able to roll back further progress for nuclear, but I doubt he'll be able to get rid of nuclear altogether. Not saying that this is the best thing that could happen, but it probably won't be quite as bad as it could be.

Yes but we need MORE nuclear energy; the amount we rely on right now is not enough, and a good chunk of the rest is done by fossil fuels. Unless he's willing to dedicate the entire federal budget to funding solar and wind, which would be a cost-effective way of bankrupting the country,

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:49 pm I don't know. Your guess is probably better than mine.

Short answer: Not enough.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:49 pm I don't understand what you mean by overriding a Bernie veto.

2/3s of Congress can negate a Presidential veto. This is very unlikely though.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:49 pm What about his opponents? Booker, for instance, as you support him. How compromising is he in comparison to Bernie?

I agree that Booker isn't the most compromising type either, which is unfortunate, but his pro-nuclear policy makes me like him miles better than Bernie.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:49 pmActually, can you find out about Beto O'Rourke while you're at it? There's talk of him running for President, and I like him a lot. Not sure what his position on nuclear is.

I'll wait till the primaries.

Let's hope it never reaches that and someone else wins the nomination.

I am kind of hoping that Booker wins now, because at least then we'd be supporting the same person. But yeah, it Berns when I pee, so I feel the Bern.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:49 pm You never should have ventured out of your discussions with Teo as your logic is not strong enough for this type of discussion. Does finding a 100 year old smoker negate the claim that smoking is bad for you? It would be unusual for somebody on a televised debate to not perform well in an election. That does not mean all people on televised debates perform well in all elections.

Okay, so I made this clear to Red on Discord, but I guess I'd better make it clear to everybody else on the forum as well. The above paragraph is a joke. It's a reference that I know Red and at least one other person (and I've yet to see any evidence that it is more than one person) will get.

You lost me.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:49 pmAside from that, I think my argument can actually be made a bit clearer so here it goes: Anderson and Perot may not have won the elections in which they stood for, however, these are just recent examples. Things have changed since then. As Harold Wilson is believed to have said, "A week is a long time in politics". The dissatisfaction with the two parties has grown in recent years, and it isn't unlikely that the Libertarian Party could take one of their places.

Hey many, if the Republican party goes down within a few years, I wouldn't mind the Libertarians taking their place.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:49 pmAs well as that, depending on which area you live in, there may be nothing to lose by voting for them. If Bernie is the Democratic nominee, and your area is likely to turn blue regardless, it wouldn't be a bad idea to vote Libertarian as a form of protest against his anti-nuclear policies.

Well Bernie is going to win my state anyway and due to the electoral college's rules, it isn't even worth voting against him.

I'd still vote for Trump if it came to him and Bernie unfortunately.

Red wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:31 pm Yes but we need MORE nuclear energy; the amount we rely on right now is not enough, and a good chunk of the rest is done by fossil fuels. Unless he's willing to dedicate the entire federal budget to funding solar and wind, which would be a cost-effective way of bankrupting the country,

Well that sucks. Do you still think he would veto pro-nuclear stuff? Even if he disagrees with it, is it typical of Presidents to veto everything they disagree with?

Short answer: Not enough.

What's the long answer?

2/3s of Congress can negate a Presidential veto. This is very unlikely though.

I thought we were talking about education and healthcare, which he wouldn't be likely to veto. If we're talking about nuclear, then that's a good thing isn't it? The majority of Democrats and Republicans support it so are likely to overturn a Presidential veto in this situation.

I agree that Booker isn't the most compromising type either, which is unfortunate, but his pro-nuclear policy makes me like him miles better than Bernie.

If that's the case, then if Bernie was elected and pro-nuclear proposals can still get through, it really is a secondary issue if he is uncompromising on certain things.

You lost me.

I've explained it to you on Discord. If you still don't know what it was a reference to, I'll explain it to you again, but you ought to respond to me so I can actually know whether you've seen it or not.

Hey many, if the Republican party goes down within a few years, I wouldn't mind the Libertarians taking their place.

Well you can help that by voting for them if Bernie becomes the nominee.

I'd still vote for Trump if it came to him and Bernie unfortunately.

What would you have to lose by voting for Gary Johnson?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:43 pm Well that sucks. Do you still think he would veto pro-nuclear stuff? Even if he disagrees with it, is it typical of Presidents to veto everything they disagree with?

Most definitely to both.

From time to time, Presidents are pressured into signing bills, but again, Bernie is the uncompromising type.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:43 pm What's the long answer?

It just isn't enough.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:43 pm I thought we were talking about education and healthcare, which he wouldn't be likely to veto. If we're talking about nuclear, then that's a good thing isn't it? The majority of Democrats and Republicans support it so are likely to overturn a Presidential veto in this situation.

Still very unlikely. I find it unlikely that the Democrats and Republicans would be able to come to an agreement on energy, since the Dems want more renewables, and the Republicans want more fossil fuels.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:43 pm If that's the case, then if Bernie was elected and pro-nuclear proposals can still get through, it really is a secondary issue if he is uncompromising on certain things.

Are you willing to bank on that?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:43 pm I've explained it to you on Discord. If you still don't know what it was a reference to, I'll explain it to you again, but you ought to respond to me so I can actually know whether you've seen it or not.

I forgot.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:43 pm Well you can help that by voting for them if Bernie becomes the nominee.

I think Trump is doing a good enough job himself.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:43 pm What would you have to lose by voting for Gary Johnson?

What do I have to gain?