Yes. The confusion is in the wording, not the message itself.
We already know they have the presidency and SCOTUS. The third piece of the trifecta is Congress. They already have the Senate. We’re just waiting on confirmation that they have the House as well.
When they talk about a “trifecta” in this context it means the presidency, the Senate and the House. That applies to both the national and State governments.
Those are the three branches of the U.S. government, but in this context, they mean the three institutions required to pass legislation; a bill must go through both the House and the Senate and then be signed by the President to become a law. If Democrats had taken one of those institutions, they could have slowed the Republicans’ agenda…
While I assume the article is referring to House, Senate, and presidency; it’s really legislative, executive, and judgicial
Theoretically the judicial should be considered nonpartisan and objective when talking about this but we know that’s a load of crap now.
Yes. The confusion is in the wording, not the message itself.
We already know they have the presidency and SCOTUS. The third piece of the trifecta is Congress. They already have the Senate. We’re just waiting on confirmation that they have the House as well.
The sad thing is, it works for both.
When they talk about a “trifecta” in this context it means the presidency, the Senate and the House. That applies to both the national and State governments.
Those are the three branches of the U.S. government, but in this context, they mean the three institutions required to pass legislation; a bill must go through both the House and the Senate and then be signed by the President to become a law. If Democrats had taken one of those institutions, they could have slowed the Republicans’ agenda…