What if Hillary wins big and captures veto proof majorities in Congress?

Who believes she will pass any of Bernie's agenda items on the Dem platform? Like Free College? Infrastructure projects, etc.?

My opinion is she'll make up excuses to not do any of that and moves back to the right after she's duped some of the stupid progressives into voting for her.

 

If this happens ....God help us all.

 

Hillary winning big would be fun to watch. She'd have all these progressives demanding the leftist policy written into the platform, and she'd be fighting to pretend she was trying to pass them and actually not want to do any of it, because her handlers on Wall Street who make the decisions for her based on having paid her to do their bidding won't allow it.

 

well I think we all give too much credit to presidents... presidents don't write laws, they sign them... so assuming democrats take control of congress, it will still be up to congress to write the laws and pass them and send them to the president... so it won't matter how liberal or conservative Hillary is, it will depend on the down-ballot elections and how socialist those people are I guess... Hillary will be pressured if there is an immense support for the items passed to a presidents desk, she won't be immune to pressure, they likely won't call her out as much as her opponents would, but depending how extreme they are, its quite possible they might pressure her greatly...

but it has far less to do with her, so much as what happens with congress, they write the laws, they put the pressure on the president, so if a bunch of socialists want $15 an hour minimum wage and they represent the majority of congress, she will have a very tough time resisting them and validating why she is resisting them since she's essentially on the hook with her public statements, if she backs down once they pass things to her, I don't see how she could win a second term, she might even face a primary candidate on the democrat side to replace her if thats the case... but like I said, I don't think congress will flip that far or in enough quantity to make her the bad guy...

 

This is almost an assurance, many on the progressive left are misguided. And their silly dreams are not viable for a functioning democracy. Bypassing silly dreams in 3, 2, 1...

 

Don,t start picking out drapes for the Congressional offices or even the WH yet. She has a fair chance on the WH is Trump doesn't,t get what he gas been praying to Allah for - another terrorist attack.

 

You mean the silly dreams of simply doing exactly what ALL OF THE OTHER developed democracies in the world already do?

 

If you're talking about Europe, it's a charity case.

If you're talking about the third world Venezuela is a disaster.

We couldn't even handle healthcare reform without the bills going up for most users.

 

We can do anything Germany can do, or Scandinavia? If you think not, I guess you're saying they are BETTER THAN US, if they CAN do it, and WE CAN'T. Look's like more "American Exceptionalism" They can do these things and we are EXCEPTIONALLY INEPT and CAN'T.

 

Texas already has plans to secede.

 

Good Riddance! Don't let the door hit you in the asss on the way out!

 

If she actually performs as well on election day as the polls indicate she might, there is a very good chance that control of the Senate will move to the Democrats. It's also possible that Democrats could pick up several seats in the House, but taking control of the House isn't nearly as likely.

There are some sources predicting that Clinton will win overwhelmingly… with landslide proportions. If that were to happen, then she could claim a "mandate" to push her legislative agenda forward using the idea that "the will of the people" had spoken, but she'd still have some serious opposition among the Republicans in the House. With Democratic control of the Senate, though, she would have less trouble getting her Supreme Court nominees through.

Lots of people have projected the election to be fairly close in the popular vote, even if there is a landslide in the electoral college. A close popular vote would lessen the ability to claim a mandate, though.

 

Maybe cuz those policies were foolhardy and would never work.

 

I'm not Texas, but thank you for your deluded compliment. LOL!

 

And who's going to pay for it all???

The wealthy? Greedy, just greedy.

- - - Updated - - -

And let's not forget all the free drugs the leftists want.

 

Say hello to universal healthcare and free tertiary education.

 

Since most people don't know where laws come from, here is a version even the average person can understand...
http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17

Hint: it helps to control both the House and the Senate. Dems will only have the Senate.
Second hint: Having control of the executive branch, the SCOTUS, and the Senate (and getting closer on the current joke that is the House) is still pretty good.
2.5 out of 3 ain't bad

 

I'm not sure why she wouldn't? I mean, she's already incorporated some Berniesms into her campaign, so if she has a cooperative Congress...why not?

Now obviously a Democratic Congress and President, like the last time we had that, would still be a slave to it's donors, so I doubt there would be much serious banking or finance regulation, but the free college bit...that's only money.

 

Moscow, circa 1955.

 

No those policies are the typical policies in place and functioning well throughout the world, THEY DO WORK EVERYWHERE, unless you're saying that the USA is TOO FCCKING STUPID to do what everyone else CAN DO?

- - - Updated - - -

We'll find ways to fund it JUST LIKE THEY DO EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD. We'll quit being Hillbilly 'Murica and follow the SMART PEOPLE!

- - - Updated - - -

I think Hillary is too right wing to want the stuff SMART COUNTRIES do, she's rather continue with the STUPID American nonsense and send the money to Wall Street and the 1%.

- - - Updated - - -

She just did that to get votes, she's really a right wing tool neocon in Wall Street's pocket.

- - - Updated - - -

GOOD! That's why I want It! FUUK Texas!

 

Sure but she has no donor, personal, or party objections to spending government money. Wall Street would love some extra money slinging, just as they've loved the artificially low interest rates we've had during the Obama administration. I think she's now proposing some sort of Hillary-Stimulus where she'll spend a trillion or so on "infrastructure." I don't understand why you think she would have an objection to turning on the money spigots full blast assuming a compliant Congress?

 

No, some nutballs in Texas have plans to secede. Luckily the majority of the population in Texas are not whackos.

 

Well first that just won't happen, chances are the Democrats won't get the Senate or the House. But if it did, she'd probably push a lot of super progressive stuff. What sense does it make for her to play to the right when she can do what she wants?

 

Maybe so, but I want the money flowing directly to middle class people, free college, single payer Medicare for all, direct hiring of middle class people to upgrade infrastructure. Not open the spigots and play the trickle down nonsense that never works, by sending the money to corporations and Wall Street.

- - - Updated - - -

What she wants is right wing, she's NOT PROGRESSIVE, she's a right of center moderate neocon, employed by Wall Street.

 

You mean the people not voting for the rapists wife? Those "nutballs? LOL! Continuing to support a criminal like Clinton is perfectly normal. ROTFLMFAO!