Youngkin thinks he is king

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, selective outrage. If he doesn't sign a bill it automatically becomes law 30 days after adjournment. Many to most states are like this.

People, at least know the facts before you start reposting misinformation. You are part of the problem!

So he is behaving differently than any other previous governor but it's "selective" outrage.

Oh.

Oh please I remember Northam signing the SB1303 guaranteeing in person school on the very last day.
Andplusalso - the Ds are no better. Youngkin is basically doing payback for the Ds not approving one of his cabinet selections which they historically just rubber stamp - and so the Ds also behaving differently as well.

It’s really becoming clear to me that the difference between the Rs and the Ds is the difference between gonorrhea and chlamydia.

Dems opposed one nominee who was wholly unfit and approved lots of others without incident. That’s a little different from what Youngkin is doing.

What exactly is he doing - signing one version of a bill instead of both? It's the same result for citizens.

Custom and practice is for the governor to sign both versions, regardless of who sponsors them. Youngkin is signing the Republican-sponsored House versions while vetoing the Dem-sponsored Senate versions so the Republican sponsors can claim credit and the Democratic sponsors can’t. It is rank partisan politics, and highly divisive. Definitely not he behavior of someone who is trying to a uniter as Youngkin claimed he would be. He’s petty and vindictive, which are not good traits in a leader.

That's why everyone hates politicians. But you notice in the Rs and not the Ds. I'm saying they both do it.

Did you respond to the wrong post? Or did you misread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, selective outrage. If he doesn't sign a bill it automatically becomes law 30 days after adjournment. Many to most states are like this.

People, at least know the facts before you start reposting misinformation. You are part of the problem!

So he is behaving differently than any other previous governor but it's "selective" outrage.

Oh.

DP. Whoooooosh... that's the point. He's not behaving any differently than previous governors.

Yes, he is. Both in quantity of vetoes and partisan targeting of the bills he signs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, selective outrage. If he doesn't sign a bill it automatically becomes law 30 days after adjournment. Many to most states are like this.

People, at least know the facts before you start reposting misinformation. You are part of the problem!

So he is behaving differently than any other previous governor but it's "selective" outrage.

Oh.

I have no idea if he is "behaving differently than any other previous governor." What I do know is that the constitution sets up the process. If one Gov feels the need to sign every bill so they pass that is their choice. If another decides to only sign the bills they would like to sign -- and the rest pass regardless, that is their choice. Outcome is the same. Both ways are completely legitimate and defined ways to legislate under the VA constitution.

Just because someone on the internet claims this is not how it should doesn't make it so. That is misinformation. Don't fall for that. Be smarter.

Huh? Are you talking about something else? He is not "not signing" the bills so that they go on to pass later. He is signing some, amending some, and vetoing others. He's doing all the bills. He's doing it differently than other governors have done in the past.

You're asleep, yourself.

Well that is what the pie chart is claiming. That he is way behind on signing bills. If he doesn't sign them they become law. Outcome the same. He can sign (law), not sign (law), amend (revote) and veto. If you don't like the process you need to work to have it changed. If he was sitting there just vetoing everything then I would listen to your complaints. But he isn't doing that. He isn't behind or doing something nefarious. Many governors let bills sit, unsigned and just become law. Common practice around the country.

Too many facts! Does not fit narrative!
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think he's been wonderful.

+100
Yep. The only people throwing temper tantrums are the Democrats, who aren't getting their way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, selective outrage. If he doesn't sign a bill it automatically becomes law 30 days after adjournment. Many to most states are like this.

People, at least know the facts before you start reposting misinformation. You are part of the problem!

So he is behaving differently than any other previous governor but it's "selective" outrage.

Oh.

I have no idea if he is "behaving differently than any other previous governor." What I do know is that the constitution sets up the process. If one Gov feels the need to sign every bill so they pass that is their choice. If another decides to only sign the bills they would like to sign -- and the rest pass regardless, that is their choice. Outcome is the same. Both ways are completely legitimate and defined ways to legislate under the VA constitution.

Just because someone on the internet claims this is not how it should doesn't make it so. That is misinformation. Don't fall for that. Be smarter.

Huh? Are you talking about something else? He is not "not signing" the bills so that they go on to pass later. He is signing some, amending some, and vetoing others. He's doing all the bills. He's doing it differently than other governors have done in the past.

You're asleep, yourself.

Well that is what the pie chart is claiming. That he is way behind on signing bills. If he doesn't sign them they become law. Outcome the same. He can sign (law), not sign (law), amend (revote) and veto. If you don't like the process you need to work to have it changed. If he was sitting there just vetoing everything then I would listen to your complaints. But he isn't doing that. He isn't behind or doing something nefarious. Many governors let bills sit, unsigned and just become law. Common practice around the country.

Too many facts! Does not fit narrative!
DP

Those are old facts. Not current facts. Those do fit the narrative, and who wants to face that?

[Anonymous]

Some of you Democrats need to brush up on basic civics. From the Constitution of VA, bills will become law automatically if the Governor takes no action. Youngkin isn't behind on anything.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article5/section6/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of you Democrats need to brush up on basic civics. From the Constitution of VA, bills will become law automatically if the Governor takes no action. Youngkin isn't behind on anything.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article5/section6/

As a former Republican, you're embarrassing me. Do you not like the facts? Or did you just not bother to read anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, selective outrage. If he doesn't sign a bill it automatically becomes law 30 days after adjournment. Many to most states are like this.

People, at least know the facts before you start reposting misinformation. You are part of the problem!

So he is behaving differently than any other previous governor but it's "selective" outrage.

Oh.

Oh please I remember Northam signing the SB1303 guaranteeing in person school on the very last day.
Andplusalso - the Ds are no better. Youngkin is basically doing payback for the Ds not approving one of his cabinet selections which they historically just rubber stamp - and so the Ds also behaving differently as well.

It’s really becoming clear to me that the difference between the Rs and the Ds is the difference between gonorrhea and chlamydia.

Dems opposed one nominee who was wholly unfit and approved lots of others without incident. That’s a little different from what Youngkin is doing.

What exactly is he doing - signing one version of a bill instead of both? It's the same result for citizens.

Custom and practice is for the governor to sign both versions, regardless of who sponsors them. Youngkin is signing the Republican-sponsored House versions while vetoing the Dem-sponsored Senate versions so the Republican sponsors can claim credit and the Democratic sponsors can’t. It is rank partisan politics, and highly divisive. Definitely not he behavior of someone who is trying to a uniter as Youngkin claimed he would be. He’s petty and vindictive, which are not good traits in a leader.

That's why everyone hates politicians. But you notice in the Rs and not the Ds. I'm saying they both do it.

Did you respond to the wrong post? Or did you misread?

Nope - I just double checked and i don't think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you Democrats need to brush up on basic civics. From the Constitution of VA, bills will become law automatically if the Governor takes no action. Youngkin isn't behind on anything.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article5/section6/

As a former Republican, you're embarrassing me. Do you not like the facts? Or did you just not bother to read anything?

What are the facts? I think the PP is right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, selective outrage. If he doesn't sign a bill it automatically becomes law 30 days after adjournment. Many to most states are like this.

People, at least know the facts before you start reposting misinformation. You are part of the problem!

So he is behaving differently than any other previous governor but it's "selective" outrage.

Oh.

Oh please I remember Northam signing the SB1303 guaranteeing in person school on the very last day.
Andplusalso - the Ds are no better. Youngkin is basically doing payback for the Ds not approving one of his cabinet selections which they historically just rubber stamp - and so the Ds also behaving differently as well.

It’s really becoming clear to me that the difference between the Rs and the Ds is the difference between gonorrhea and chlamydia.

Dems opposed one nominee who was wholly unfit and approved lots of others without incident. That’s a little different from what Youngkin is doing.

What exactly is he doing - signing one version of a bill instead of both? It's the same result for citizens.

Custom and practice is for the governor to sign both versions, regardless of who sponsors them. Youngkin is signing the Republican-sponsored House versions while vetoing the Dem-sponsored Senate versions so the Republican sponsors can claim credit and the Democratic sponsors can’t. It is rank partisan politics, and highly divisive. Definitely not he behavior of someone who is trying to a uniter as Youngkin claimed he would be. He’s petty and vindictive, which are not good traits in a leader.

That's why everyone hates politicians. But you notice in the Rs and not the Ds. I'm saying they both do it.

Can you point to specific examples where a Democratic governor of Virginia has signed a Dem-sponsored bill while vetoing the identical Republican-sponsored version from the other chamber?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, selective outrage. If he doesn't sign a bill it automatically becomes law 30 days after adjournment. Many to most states are like this.

People, at least know the facts before you start reposting misinformation. You are part of the problem!

So he is behaving differently than any other previous governor but it's "selective" outrage.

Oh.

Oh please I remember Northam signing the SB1303 guaranteeing in person school on the very last day.
Andplusalso - the Ds are no better. Youngkin is basically doing payback for the Ds not approving one of his cabinet selections which they historically just rubber stamp - and so the Ds also behaving differently as well.

It’s really becoming clear to me that the difference between the Rs and the Ds is the difference between gonorrhea and chlamydia.

Dems opposed one nominee who was wholly unfit and approved lots of others without incident. That’s a little different from what Youngkin is doing.

What exactly is he doing - signing one version of a bill instead of both? It's the same result for citizens.

Custom and practice is for the governor to sign both versions, regardless of who sponsors them. Youngkin is signing the Republican-sponsored House versions while vetoing the Dem-sponsored Senate versions so the Republican sponsors can claim credit and the Democratic sponsors can’t. It is rank partisan politics, and highly divisive. Definitely not he behavior of someone who is trying to a uniter as Youngkin claimed he would be. He’s petty and vindictive, which are not good traits in a leader.

That's why everyone hates politicians. But you notice in the Rs and not the Ds. I'm saying they both do it.

Can you point to specific examples where a Democratic governor of Virginia has signed a Dem-sponsored bill while vetoing the identical Republican-sponsored version from the other chamber?

No but I already cited an example of Ds engaging in petty politicking in this thread when they didn't approve one of his choices that the other party normally approves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you Democrats need to brush up on basic civics. From the Constitution of VA, bills will become law automatically if the Governor takes no action. Youngkin isn't behind on anything.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article5/section6/

As a former Republican, you're embarrassing me. Do you not like the facts? Or did you just not bother to read anything?

I guess it's you who didn't bother to read the link. Talk about embarrassing...

"During a regular or special session, the Governor shall have seven days in which to act on the bill after it is presented to him and to exercise one of the three options set out below. If the Governor does not act on the bill, it shall become law without his signature."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Finally!

+1
I only wish he would move up the FCPS election too. Very envious that LCPS has a chance to vote their clown car out early.

[Anonymous]

For the (multiple? single?) poster who refuses to click on links or acknowledge reality:

"Youngkin vetoed 25 bills that had bipartisan support in the General Assembly, throwing sharp elbows particularly at lawmakers who represent blue areas of Northern Virginia. For instance, he vetoed nine of the 10 bills sponsored by Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) while signing identical House bills in six of those cases.

Typically a governor signs both versions, allowing both sponsors bragging rights for getting a bill passed into law. Longtime state legislators said they could not think of a case in which a governor signed one bill and vetoed its companion. “This is my 19th year, and I’ve never seen it before,” said Del. Mark D. Sickles (D-Fairfax).

...

“Some of the vetoes involve very uncontroversial measures … which is not the norm,” said Stephen Farnsworth, a political scientist at the University of Mary Washington. “This is a further example of how partisan politics has become in Virginia.”

...

By vetoing 25 bills and amending 114 in his first legislative session, Youngkin got off to a more aggressive start than recent governors.

Democrat Ralph Northam vetoed 20 bills and amended 60 in 2018, Democrat Terry McAuliffe vetoed 10 and amended 57, and Republican Robert F. McDonnell vetoed none and amended 123, according to figures provided by Youngkin’s office.

Youngkin’s active veto pen surprised longtime Richmond political analyst Bob Holsworth because the governor’s own party controls the House of Delegates.

“That’s what makes it look to be, in some instances, more of a political tit-for-tat than a philosophical objection,” Holsworth said."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the (multiple? single?) poster who refuses to click on links or acknowledge reality:

"Youngkin vetoed 25 bills that had bipartisan support in the General Assembly, throwing sharp elbows particularly at lawmakers who represent blue areas of Northern Virginia. For instance, he vetoed nine of the 10 bills sponsored by Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) while signing identical House bills in six of those cases.

Typically a governor signs both versions, allowing both sponsors bragging rights for getting a bill passed into law. Longtime state legislators said they could not think of a case in which a governor signed one bill and vetoed its companion. “This is my 19th year, and I’ve never seen it before,” said Del. Mark D. Sickles (D-Fairfax).

...

“Some of the vetoes involve very uncontroversial measures … which is not the norm,” said Stephen Farnsworth, a political scientist at the University of Mary Washington. “This is a further example of how partisan politics has become in Virginia.”

...

By vetoing 25 bills and amending 114 in his first legislative session, Youngkin got off to a more aggressive start than recent governors.

Democrat Ralph Northam vetoed 20 bills and amended 60 in 2018, Democrat Terry McAuliffe vetoed 10 and amended 57, and Republican Robert F. McDonnell vetoed none and amended 123, according to figures provided by Youngkin’s office.

Youngkin’s active veto pen surprised longtime Richmond political analyst Bob Holsworth because the governor’s own party controls the House of Delegates.

“That’s what makes it look to be, in some instances, more of a political tit-for-tat than a philosophical objection,” Holsworth said."

How many bills did he approve? Maybe % wise it's not a huge departure. But politics are partisan and moreso now that before - in other words - water is wet. And the left engages in politicking and culture wars just as much as the right.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/

WHY THE PAST 10 YEARS OF AMERICAN LIFE HAVE BEEN UNIQUELY STUPID
It’s not just a phase.

By Jonathan Haidt
Illustrations by Nicolás Ortega