The Contract With America was released during the 1994 mid-term campaign, when Clinton was in the White House. So if any of the CWA proposals were codified in the next six years, it was during the Clinton administration.
Clinton actually endorsed one item in the CWA, the passage of a line-item veto. A law was passed in 1996 for that, but was subsequently ruled unconstitutional in the case of Clinton v. City of New York in 1998.
[quote=“LSLGuy, post:5935, topic:1014678”]
Appealing, appalling, potato potahto
[lly /quote]
Appalling, dammit. Stupid phone, changing it after I’d carefully proofread. Probably missed it due to the spittle on the screen.
Me either, but the IT tropes are common. It’s often joked that if a flight going to a furry convention crashed then the internet would go up in flames.
“When missing posters go up, Ken Paxton takes them down,” the narrator explains, accompanied by a video of someone tearing down the missing child flyer.
Anytime anyone trots out this asinine rape apologist bullshit, I want to tell them, “She didn’t say anything because she knew she would be judged, criticized and discounted by people like you.”
It’s so obvious if you think about it for two seconds.
I live in the south suburbs of Chicago, and Sunday, 20 minutes before the national anthem at Soldier Field, the flyover for the Bears game flew by. Then, as I watched the game, I saw propaganda ad after propaganda ad. Even Paxton’s wife had one, and this was on air in Chi-town.
The propaganda and military worship has truly taken over.
“And he’ll steal your pen, too.”
Hey, if they thought the poster-destroying was a selling point, why wouldn’t thieving be, too?
I watched it muted (at work) so I may have missed it, but I assume he’s saying that if you elect him, you won’t need missing children posters because all people responsible will be in jail, maybe?
If that’s what it is, it’s poorly executed, if for no other reason, because THAT child would still be missing, regardless of what he does going forward.
Oh, for sure, Paxton’s people were trying to get across the idea ‘CRIME WILL STOP if Paxton is elected.’
They just failed spectacularly.
That one was truly bizarre.
She despises her soon to be ex-husband for very obvious reasons, so her pitch to voters was to close your eyes and think of Engla…errr, that is, to ignore the name on the ballot and vote Republican.
Party over principles. Party over personal choice. Party over all else.
Sure, tell yourselves the real problem is liberal indoctrination as you put out national ads telling people to ignore everything but the interests of the Party.
Funny - - I’m pretty sure that I came up with the term independently.
Everyone did. It was a painfully obvious dig at Newt.
A line-item veto gives the executive way too much power, because it’s impossible to rigorously define what counts as a “line” or an “item”. If it’s the legislature passing the law that defines it, then you’ll get the legislature defining the entire bill as one item, and the “line-item veto” is toothless. But if it’s the executive defining it, then you get things like vetoing just the word “not” to completely change the meaning of a law.
IIRC, a Midwest governor took advantage of this in a bill that increased school funding through to the 24-25 school year by vetoing the hyphen, thus increasing the funding until 2425.
Gov Evers, in Wisconsin.
He basically turned “for the 2023-24 school year and the 2024-25 school year” into “for 2023-2425 school year”.
It would give too much power to the President or congress, or too much power to unelected parliamentarians or committees who get to decide what an item is. And the 1996 line item veto applied to budgets, which means that creating line items out of a bill is at least possible. For legislation regarding laws and policies etc. the legislation might be so intertwined that vetoing one part makes it meaningless, whereas excising part of a spending bill means that that spending just doesn’t get done.
There are states and territories where the line-item veto is limited specifically to appropriations. My own governor can only cut or strike the how much but not the what for so they can zero out some program they want shut down but can’t do the “2425” trick.
I think you mispronounced “asshole.”
Which does not disturb the current SCOTUS in the least.
manoman what a gap-out that was.