President Donald Trump on Wednesday cancelled plans to sign bipartisan housing legislation in a fit of pique over Republican senators’ refusal to blow up their chamber’s rules to pass his voter ID bill.

The president had been set to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act in a rare Capitol signing ceremony at noon on Wednesday before attending a Senate Republican Steering Committee lunch.

But with less than an hour remaining until he was scheduled to leave the White House, he took to Truth Social to announce that the ceremony was “hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT.”


Wroth mentioning: the housing bill is veto-proof.

  • kurmudgeon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Just goes to show, nothing is more important to Republicans than staying in power by any means necessary. They don’t give a shit about you, they only give a shit about themselves.

  • WanderWisley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    17 hours ago

    My predictions

    1. They will be heavily favored by the Republicans for all the gerrymandering they have done.
    2. we won’t actually have midterms, due to Donny trying to cancel them for the ongoing war in Iran if not a few more by then.
    3. total disaster for the republicans, but as a result of that they will cry foul and we will have Jan 6 all over the country and capital again.
    • justaman123@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      16 hours ago

      On point one I’m fully expecting a much bigger showing for Democrats due to dummymandering. Red voters are gonna stay home for midterms

  • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    This fucker is not going to allow elections in 2028. Buckle up, boys.

    • BassTurd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      18 hours ago

      He can try, but elections are a state level thing that he can’t stop. If red states want to abstain, more power to them, but there will be lawsuits, and the citizens will win. Maybe some hopium in there, but most of this stuff is pretty clear cut, and there have been a lot of judges siding against Trump recently, so there’s strong precedent.

      Also, god willing, he will be fucking dead by then.

      • mkwt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Yep. This is why Trump is dicking with the post office, which is federal.

        Also, if only red states abstain from the elections, then only their representatives and senators will be bogged down in lawsuits. Not a great way to retain control of the chambers.

    • BassTurd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Fortunately, he doesn’t have to in this case. 10 days from the deadline it’s a law if nothing happens.

        • BassTurd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          16 hours ago

          That’s not true. Once the bill is passed by both chambers, enrollment is handled by the clerk of the house and secretary of the Senate. Johnson has no power over their actions and can’t block anything since it’s now past his control. Now, that’s not say say he couldn’t try to convince them with the no power he has to hold it up, but I don’t know who the clerk or secretary are, if they would capitulate, or what the ramifications could be if they declined to do their duties.

  • Tony Bark@pawb.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    Update: the housing bill only covers homes under $100,000 (Sec. 105). That’s why it doesn’t matter if it were signed or not.

    • OwOarchist@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      The bill maintains the language in the House amendment restricting institutional investors from buying single-family homes

      Restricts the purchase of new single-family homes by large institutional investors that directly or indirectly own at least 350 single-family homes.

      Sounds like this part could be a big deal, though.