quote:
But forty-two senators, all Republicans, voted no. As a result, Udall noted, the Republican minority was able to “filibuster this measure and instead choose to support a broken system that prioritizes corporations and billionaires over regular voters.”

FAIL!

It was a proposed AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION!
Meaning it required a TWO-THIRDS vote of the Senate.

The amendment would have authorized Congress to limit fundraising, and spending on federal candidates. It would also prohibit the Supreme Court from reversing any future campaign finance legislation passed by Congress.

Regardless of the ridiculous nature of the proposal, either Sen Udall and the Nation are too stupid to realize the measure required 67 votes, or they are lying.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by teke184

Zachary, LA

Member since Jan 2007

94915 posts

Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:56 pm to NC_Tigah

quote:
Regardless of the ridiculous nature of the proposal, either Sen Udall and the Nation are too stupid to realize the measure required 67 votes, or they are lying.

All of the above.

I think the ACLU's response to this is a nice retort by any Republicans trashed over this. How fricking often are Republicans and the ACLU on the same side?

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by redandright

Member since Jun 2011

9604 posts

Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:39 pm to NC_Tigah

quote:
Regardless of the ridiculous nature of the proposal, either Sen Udall and the Nation are too stupid to realize the measure required 67 votes, or they are lying.

Udall's nervous. He's in a tight race.

And then he did this.

LINK /

quote:
Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) apologized Monday for saying two American journalists who were recently executed by the Islamic State would caution the U.S. not to "be impulsive" as it weighs its options to combat the extremist group.

Page 1 2