I’ve already addressed that point.
splinter
joined 4 months ago
With such a high majority it would have just been overturned immediately, so no, he couldn’t have vetoed the bill. An attempt to do so wouldn’t have helped at all and might have undermined future cooperation.
No, he doesn’t. This is Trump just hurling executive orders at things he doesn’t like.
I clarified further. In the rail strike case, it was a senate bill, not an executive action. And the bill passed 80-15. Biden signed the bill, but that isn’t the same thing at all.
That’s incorrect, and these situations aren’t close to comparable.
When Biden was in power, eight out of twelve unions had already ratified the contract, and the senate passed a bill to force the final four to accept it. It passed 80-15, so Biden couldn’t have vetoed it if he wanted to.
Trump is attempting to ban unions altogether, by executive order.
I agree with what you’re saying and also it feels worth pointing out how pervasive the rhetoric of profitability has become.
We don’t talk about the military running at a loss, or the department of transport, or any other part of the government. We talk about their cost, because that’s really what it is. Services don’t “lose” money, they cost money.
They’re describing LORAN.
What workplace is this that has dorms?
Fortunate that the constitution explicitly makes protesting legal, right guys?…
Bitwarden integrates directly with several email alias providers: https://bitwarden.com/blog/add-privacy-and-security-using-email-aliases-with-bitwarden/
Couldn’t agree more. And they want that control because of greed.