Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

True Dough

(27,314 posts)

4. Why would you say a "lame duck" president has the right to advance

Reply to red dog 1 (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 04:57 PM

Aug 2016

one enormously impactful initiative but not another? I'm not saying they are equivalent. The two are are apples and oranges but they are huge legacy decisions. I think it's fair to argue Obama should be able to pursue both actions or neither, based on being a supposed lame duck. I prefer the latter, for the record.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Petition To Hillary Clinton: "Ask White House To Stop Pushing For 'Lame Duck' TPP Vote in Congress" [View all] red dog 1 Aug 2016 OP

There's a petition I won't sign. MohRokTah Aug 2016 #1

Obama is making the case the the Senate should affirm Merrick Garland True Dough Aug 2016 #2

Sorry, I don't follow your logic red dog 1 Aug 2016 #3

Why would you say a "lame duck" president has the right to advance True Dough Aug 2016 #4

I never said Obama doesn't "have the right" to "advance" a lame duck TPP vote red dog 1 Aug 2016 #5

I'm curious True Dough Aug 2016 #6

Who cares why? red dog 1 Aug 2016 #8

That's a pretty shallow response! True Dough Aug 2016 #9

wouldn't it be better to contact congress and get others in their district or state to oppose it ? JI7 Aug 2016 #7