I hope he does the same thing as president. It's his job to veto the stupid sh!t congress sends to him, and sign only the good legislation. The more he vetos, the harder congress has to work to step up their game.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Raees is a walking representation of why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. All Raees needs is one little fact and an echo chamber to come up with a conclusion which is wholly insupportable by anything other than his disdain for an individual or a group with whom (s)he disagrees.
And once again, your point? We have high unemployment, record debt, a president unable to do anything with Congress and you are worrying about too many vetos.
Really?
That is all you can find to justify your vote for Barack.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
The problem with vetos is the executive should be engaged in the legislative process earlier and negotiate an acceptable compromise where possible. If a partisan piece of legislation gets rammed thru, then go ahead and veto it. Same for unconstitutional crap and wasteful spending.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Raees wrote: No, I voted based on Romney's stance on repealing ACA and because he's against a woman's right to chose.
The vetoes are just a glimpse of what's in store if Romney is elected. You think Congress is deadlocked now, just wait.
Stupid reasons. He will be unable to repeal ACA unless the Republicans win every open Senate seat. And he will be unable to overturn a Supreme Court decision that has been the law of the land under numerous Republican administrations. Even Ronald Reagan couldn't overturn the court.
Be realistic and dismiss the scare tactics.
I don't believe Obama will be able to pass a new assault weapons ban despite how the NRA tries to scare me.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.