re: Mike Lee Fires Back After Cornyn Says SAVE America Act ‘Not Gonna Happen’

And that is exactly why he lost. Being a political pussy.

quote:

---

They should force endless debate! This entire implied “filibuster” where everyone goes about their day is pure laziness. The civil rights act was filibustered by your fellow Democrats and had today’s procedures been in place, would have never passed. Like that bill, some things are worth actually forcing the opposition to put in the work to kill the bill. Let the 80% of the people who support the SAVE act visibly see who opposes it and why.

---

That's a different argument, though.

If your position is that Republicans should force a public debate and make Democrats publicly filibuster the bill, fine. That's a political strategy.

But Mike Lee wasn't arguing they could create a political spectacle. He was arguing they could pass the bill.

Those are not the same thing.

How does forcing a talking filibuster produce the votes needed to overcome a filibuster?

quote:

---

Maybe I’ve missed it, but what’s the reason he doesn’t support this?

---

It's simple. Cornyn is pi$$ed because he lost his primary and he blames Trump for that. Consequently Cornyn now has a scorched earth attitude and will oppose anything/everything Trump supports.

Because there are limits to how many times each senator can speak during the debate if the majority leader follows the rules of the chamber. It would take time and be hard work, but can be done without doing away with the filibuster entirely. Once the debate is finished, then they only need 50 votes to pass. We’ve allowed the senate to get lazy by just saying “filibuster”.


This right here is how Mike Lee explained it. It would take the majority leader to actually "lead" the majority to do it.

quote:

---

Because there are limits to how many times each senator can speak during the debate if the majority leader follows the rules of the chamber. It would take time and be hard work, but can be done without doing away with the filibuster entirely. Once the debate is finished, then they only need 50 votes to pass. We’ve allowed the senate to get lazy by just saying “filibuster”.

---

You’re making a better argument than most of the people replying to me.

But you’re defending a talking filibuster, not proving passage.

“Make them work for it” and “we can pass it with 50 votes” are two different claims.

The first is procedural.

The second still depends on Democrats eventually surrendering the floor, and I’m not sure why we should assume they would.

quote:

---

The second still depends on Democrats eventually surrendering the floor, and I’m not sure why we should assume they would.

---

Try reading the procedural rules again. Each senator can only give two speeches during the process. You let all 47 democrats who oppose speak twice and then the debate is closed. It is hard work because it will require the republicans to commit to keep the quorum until they have all spoken twice. But then it only requires 50 votes and a VP tie breaker.

quote:

---

Apparently Mike Lee disregarded Senate rules

---

The MSNBC libs obviously received their talking points.

quote:

---

You guys keep introducing new labels for me as though they’re evidence.

Leftist.
Democratic Socialist.
Whatever comes next

---

All of this aside, do you support voter ID to vote in federal elections?

quote:

---

“We all know…”

That’s usually how people begin a sentence when they don’t actually know

---

Kind of like Cornyn did?

quote:

---

Try reading the procedural rules again. Each senator can only give two speeches during the process. You let all 47 democrats who oppose speak twice and then the debate is closed. It is hard work because it will require the republicans to commit to keep the quorum until they have all spoken twice. But then it only requires 50 votes and a VP tie breaker.

---

You’ve moved the discussion from “this can pass” to “this is theoretically possible.”

Those aren’t the same claim.

At this point you’re making Cornyn’s argument for him. If the strategy requires an exhausting, high-risk, all-hands-on-deck procedural marathon that Senate leadership has no intention of pursuing, then “not gonna happen” starts looking less like ignorance and more like realism.