Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

They keep on electing him, but I have never met a Texan that was surprised by any of his shenanigans...

 d-usa wrote:
They keep on electing him, but I have never met a Texan that was surprised by any of his shenanigans...

Like a certain New Jersey Governor that comes to mind.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't think anyone has defended her or said that she should be protected.

You know that it's entirely possible that one person broke the law while trying to force another person that broke the law out of office and end up with two people breaking the law, right?

They're going to have an awfully hard time convicting Perry.

The prosecutor is claiming that, while vetoing the bill may be an official action, threatening a veto is not.
.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't think anyone has defended her or said that she should be protected.

You know that it's entirely possible that one person broke the law while trying to force another person that broke the law out of office and end up with two people breaking the law, right?

They're going to have an awfully hard time convicting Perry.

The prosecutor is claiming that, while vetoing the bill may be an official action, threatening a veto is not.
.

Threatening to veto funding because he wants to replace an official of the opposite party is completely inexcusable. Its not like Perry would have given a crap if a Republican had been caught drunk driving.

This is clearly a retaliation for Gov Perry trying to secure the border and keep all those illegal Democrat voters, oops I mean "undocumented immigrants" out of his state and this country. Btw, is that really what we're supposed to call them now? That's kind of like calling bank robbery "illegitimate loans". I hope that Perry is acquited. I guess the Obama admin doesn't like him actually following the laws and the constitution while they do everything in their power to subvert it.

 Ciciro wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't think anyone has defended her or said that she should be protected.

You know that it's entirely possible that one person broke the law while trying to force another person that broke the law out of office and end up with two people breaking the law, right?

They're going to have an awfully hard time convicting Perry.

The prosecutor is claiming that, while vetoing the bill may be an official action, threatening a veto is not.
.

Threatening to veto funding because he wants to replace an official of the opposite party is completely inexcusable. Its not like Perry would have given a crap if a Republican had been caught drunk driving.

Doesn't matter.

As long as he didn't sell is "veto" or something like that... he can use it however he wants.

Because, otherwise, you'd be saying that the legislature can't negotiate with the governor if he won’t tell them in advance what he plans to veto. This is why, when you say the word “veto,” the next word that springs to mind is “threat.” That’s how vetoes work.

Both counts are beyond ridiculous... the legal websites are going apoplexy over this.

 whembly wrote:
The prosecutor is claiming that, while vetoing the bill may be an official action, threatening a veto is not.
.

That sounds exactly like the kind of thing lawyers argue every day. As is common both sides are being petty, but both are within their legal rights to do so.

Considering this is entirely a Texas issue brought about by Texas politicians within Texas I'm not sure why people bring Pres. Obama into it.

because socialism-secret-muslim

 Ouze wrote:
because socialism-secret-muslim

No... because bismirching a potential President candidate is the goal.*

*not that he'd get the nominations w/o this ordeal

*shrug*

Politics as usual.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
because socialism-secret-muslim

No... because bismirching a potential President candidate is the goal.*

*not that he'd get the nominations w/o this ordeal

*shrug*

Politics as usual.

I wonder if in some round about way, this could end up strengthening a Republican run for the presidency by causing less division if he's eliminated because of this.

This is a good observation. Romney got beaten up pretty bad before he was the nominee. I believe the rules have been changed somewhat for this election's primaries to avoid the voters hearing too much about what a candidate actually thinks.

Taking out Rick Perry as early as possible is probably ideal, since he's not a particularly good candidate anyway; for three reasons: He's towards the bottom in polling for prospective candidates, he's polarizing enough to increase democratic turnout, and... um.... oops. I forgot the third reason.

Let's try this again:

-at-will employment state. I can fire whoever I want, whenever I want.
-if I decide to fire my secretary tomorrow, I'm not breaking the law.
-if I decide to tell my secretary "you need to work harder or I will fire you" and then fire her, I'm not breaking the law
-if I decide to tell my secretary "you will have sex with me or I will fire you" and then fire her, then I broke the law for abusing my power even though "it's not against the law to fire whoever I want"

Just chanting "a governor can veto whatever, that's the law" over and over again just shows either a complete ignorance of what he is actually charged with or some impressive misunderstanding of the law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't think anyone has defended her or said that she should be protected.

You know that it's entirely possible that one person broke the law while trying to force another person that broke the law out of office and end up with two people breaking the law, right?

They're going to have an awfully hard time convicting Perry.

The prosecutor is claiming that, while vetoing the bill may be an official action, threatening a veto is not.
.

Leaving out some important details there aren't you?

Threatening a veto is fine and good, gets done a lot, nothing wrong there. Governors and presidents use it a lot as a tool to get the legislature to do things differently. And that is what it is for, a tool to keep a check on bye legislature and to get some bargaining power over them. He is not charged with "threatening to use a veto". He is charged with threatening, and going through with that threat, to defund an entire organization unless an elected official that he doesn't like agreed to resign from her elected position.

That is what he charged with, not "vetoing", not "threatening to veto". Harping on the veto argument is just like saying "he was charged with stabbing people, but it's perfectly legal to hold a knife in your hand!"

Is it legal now for the president to veto any funding for any state with a governor he doesn't like and tell them that they can have their money back as soon as the governor resigns?

 d-usa wrote:
They keep on electing him, but I have never met a Texan that was surprised by any of his shenanigans...

That's just the usual politics in Texas.

 Ouze wrote:
This is a good observation. Romney got beaten up pretty bad before he was the nominee. I believe the rules have been changed somewhat for this election's primaries to avoid the voters hearing too much about what a candidate actually thinks.

Taking out Rick Perry as early as possible is probably ideal, since he's not a particularly good candidate anyway; for three reasons: He's towards the bottom in polling for prospective candidates, he's polarizing enough to increase democratic turnout, and... um.... oops. I forgot the third reason.

Yeah... but, why?

Once Hillary announces, none of the potential (R) can really beat her. You'd have to pull someone out of the blue that can challenge Hillary herself... like Susan Martinez, Gov of NM.

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... but, why?

Once Hillary announces, none of the potential (R) can really beat her.

Isn't that what was said this far out the last time, and she lost the primary? Hillary still has a lot of hill's to climb. Even if she gets the nomination there is no guarantee she will win, unless the R's run Palin again in some capacity.

There was no way that Obama was going to win the last election either, and look how that turned out.

 Ouze wrote:
This is a good observation. Romney got beaten up pretty bad before he was the nominee. I believe the rules have been changed somewhat for this election's primaries to avoid the voters hearing too much about what a candidate actually thinks.

Taking out Rick Perry as early as possible is probably ideal, since he's not a particularly good candidate anyway; for three reasons: He's towards the bottom in polling for prospective candidates, he's polarizing enough to increase democratic turnout, and... um.... oops. I forgot the third reason.

If it's thought of along the lines of resources expended, establishing support blocks, trying to mend fences for the last candidate standing, etc., this could very well be a blessing in disguise for the Republicans if he gets knocked out because of this.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
because socialism-secret-muslim

No... because bismirching a potential President candidate is the goal.*

Why would the DNC get involved (forget the Administration) when the Texas (D)s and (R)s will eat each other alive anyway? I have no doubt that both national committees know what is going on, but I doubt either is going to put time or resources into helping or hurting one side. There is more to politics than just the national level. You only get to Pres. Obama by wanting to put him there, not by him actually being there or having anything to do with it.

 Ahtman wrote:
[You only get to Pres. Obama by wanting to put him there, not by him actually being there or having anything to do with it.

... could you rephrase this?

Also, I don't think Mrs. Palin is ever going to run for any elected office again, ever.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... but, why?

Once Hillary announces, none of the potential (R) can really beat her.

Isn't that what was said this far out the last time, and she lost the primary? Hillary still has a lot of hill's to climb. Even if she gets the nomination there is no guarantee she will win, unless the R's run Palin again in some capacity.

Or more likely, Ted Cruz.

 Ouze wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
[You only get to Pres. Obama by wanting to put him there, not by him actually being there or having anything to do with it.

... could you rephrase this?

There were a few posts (such as "I guess the Obama admin doesn't like him actually following the laws and the constitution while they do everything in their power to subvert it.") that brought the Obama administration into the incident, which makes little sense unless everything somehow revolves around them. Oil fire at the fields? Obama attacking big oil! Protests in MO? Obama stirring up racial issues! ect ect.

 Ouze wrote:
Also, I don't think Mrs. Palin is ever going to run for any elected office again, ever.

I don't think so either, but in the odd chance they made her running partner again or actually the candidate it would be a win for the Democratic candidate.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
[You only get to Pres. Obama by wanting to put him there, not by him actually being there or having anything to do with it.

... could you rephrase this?

There were a few posts (such as "I guess the Obama admin doesn't like him actually following the laws and the constitution while they do everything in their power to subvert it.") that brought the Obama administration into the incident, which makes little sense unless everything somehow revolves around them. Oil fire at the fields? Obama attacking big oil! Protests in MO? Obama stirring up racial issues! ect ect.

I might be misunderstanding you here, and if I am, I apologize in advance, but Obama is on record as making comments that are seen in some corners as inflamatory concerning these kind of situations:

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168008-police-chief-slams-vacationing-obama-comments-ferguson-shooting/

It would be possible to imagine him doing some small thing to shore up a percieved advantage to the Dems concerning the goings on in Texas.

Relapse wrote:
It would be possible to imagine him doing some small thing to shore up a perceived advantage to the Dems concerning the goings on in Texas.

You would have to imagine it though, as he hasn't been involved and there is nothing making this a national issue. Inner state politicians eating each other isn't really equivalent a shooting that sparks national protests, something that actually would require a national leader to at least comment. I suppose the similarity is that both are more common than they should be, but that really isn't the story.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
[You only get to Pres. Obama by wanting to put him there, not by him actually being there or having anything to do with it.

... could you rephrase this?

There were a few posts (such as "I guess the Obama admin doesn't like him actually following the laws and the constitution while they do everything in their power to subvert it.") that brought the Obama administration into the incident, which makes little sense unless everything somehow revolves around them. Oil fire at the fields? Obama attacking big oil! Protests in MO? Obama stirring up racial issues! ect ect.

I see what you mean. Thanks for the clarification.

It absolutely staggers me that there are people who seem to have missed the problem with a governor saying 'unless the person I don't like steps down I will veto funding for your department'. I mean, holy fething gak people just think about what that is.

Now, I am not for one second saying that he should be indicted for the issue. I just don't know how subjective this issue is or the strengths and power of the veto under Texas law.

But fething hell, everyone understands, or at least should understand basic governance, and de-funding a department because someone isn't quitting like you think they should is a really, really gak way to run things.

 sebster wrote:
It absolutely staggers me that there are people who seem to have missed the problem with a governor saying 'unless the person I don't like steps down I will veto funding for your department'. I mean, holy fething gak people just think about what that is.

Now, I am not for one second saying that he should be indicted for the issue. I just don't know how subjective this issue is or the strengths and power of the veto under Texas law.

But fething hell, everyone understands, or at least should understand basic governance, and de-funding a department because someone isn't quitting like you think they should is a really, really gak way to run things.

EDIT: wrong thread.

 sebster wrote:
It absolutely staggers me that there are people who seem to have missed the problem with a governor saying 'unless the person I don't like steps down I will veto funding for your department'. I mean, holy fething gak people just think about what that is.

Now, I am not for one second saying that he should be indicted for the issue. I just don't know how subjective this issue is or the strengths and power of the veto under Texas law.

But fething hell, everyone understands, or at least should understand basic governance, and de-funding a department because someone isn't quitting like you think they should is a really, really gak way to run things.

Just to play devil's advocate, would you give money to someone to run a department if they acted in a way you felt untrustworthy, or would you look to replace them with someone you felt was up to the job before dispensing funds?

So Obama should be able to stop all federal funds to states with governors that are not up to his standards?

 d-usa wrote:
So Obama should be able to stop all federal funds to states with governors that are not up to his standards?

Sure... why not?

Whembly wrote:
Once Hillary announces, none of the potential (R) can really beat her. You'd have to pull someone out of the blue that can challenge Hillary herself... like Susan Martinez, Gov of NM.

Susan Combs would be a better leader than any we've had since Ford.

Note, I'm saying leader, not politician.