- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Mitch McCucknell rejects Nuclear Option
Posted on 1/21/18 at 10:41 am
Posted on 1/21/18 at 10:41 am
quote:
Senate Republicans oppose changing the chamber's rules so that legislation to fund the government and end the current shutdown could pass with a simple majority, the spokesman said.
"The Republican Conference opposes changing the rules on legislation," the spokesman said in an email.
Current Senate rules require a super-majority of three-fifths of the chamber, usually 60 out of 100, for legislation to clear procedural hurdles and pass.
LINK
18
Posted on 1/21/18 at 10:44 am to joshnorris14
McCucknell is still a bitch that enjoys the D
Posted on 1/21/18 at 10:45 am to joshnorris14
Of course they oppose it, doesn’t mean they won’t do it.
Posted on 1/21/18 at 10:45 am to joshnorris14
It’s a bad idea to come out and let the democrats know . But he doesn’t have the 51 votes needed to pass it anyway. Democrats were only voting yes last time because they knew it would not pass .
Posted on 1/21/18 at 10:46 am to joshnorris14
Why not do it, put forward a full appropriations bill, then change it back ?
Posted on 1/21/18 at 10:47 am to joshnorris14
I think this is the correct choice.
Posted on 1/21/18 at 10:47 am to truthbetold
Why would they do that? What purpose would that serve?
Posted on 1/21/18 at 10:47 am to joshnorris14
I really don't know why Mitch is so reticent.
Let me help out every American on this one.
The filibuster is dead. ENTIRELY dead. Oh, it hasn't been buried yet, but it is terminal nonetheless.
Inside of 10 years, there will be no filibuster rule in the Senate at all. You can bookmark this shite because it's a friggin certainty.
I don't see how people don't get this. Once it was bypassed the 1st time, it was already dead. Every future end run on it would be easily justified.
Sure. We'll see it incrementally killed. And, they might even hold on to it "officially" but inside of 10 years, there will be ZERO prominent legislation or appointment approvals held up by filibuster.
Let me help out every American on this one.
The filibuster is dead. ENTIRELY dead. Oh, it hasn't been buried yet, but it is terminal nonetheless.
Inside of 10 years, there will be no filibuster rule in the Senate at all. You can bookmark this shite because it's a friggin certainty.
I don't see how people don't get this. Once it was bypassed the 1st time, it was already dead. Every future end run on it would be easily justified.
Sure. We'll see it incrementally killed. And, they might even hold on to it "officially" but inside of 10 years, there will be ZERO prominent legislation or appointment approvals held up by filibuster.
This post was edited on 1/21/18 at 10:48 am
Posted on 1/21/18 at 10:47 am to joshnorris14
Of course he rejects it. It protects him. It gives GOP cucks plausibility. They can can support conservative initiatives that they are really against and go back home and tell their constituents they tried but due to Senate rules we can’t get those conservative initiatives passed (when they and their lobbyists are not for those initiatives in the first place).
Posted on 1/21/18 at 10:48 am to joshnorris14
He should still get credit for icing the Garland nomination.
Posted on 1/21/18 at 10:53 am to joshnorris14
Republicans won't be in control of the Senate forever. "Going nuclear" on all of these procedural rules will come back to bite us in the arse if we're not careful.
Posted on 1/21/18 at 10:55 am to AnonymousTiger
quote:
Republicans won't be in control of the Senate forever. "Going nuclear" on all of these procedural rules will come back to bite us in the arse if we're not careful.
To repeat.
Filibster is ALREADY dead.
I cannot believe this isn't obvious to everyone.
Posted on 1/21/18 at 10:55 am to joshnorris14
I agree with this
Posted on 1/21/18 at 10:56 am to AnonymousTiger
quote:
Republicans won't be in control of the Senate forever. "Going nuclear" on all of these procedural rules will come back to bite us in the arse if we're not careful.
There is less than nothing preventing the Democrats from using the Nuclear Option
Posted on 1/21/18 at 10:57 am to GumboPot
quote:
Of course he rejects it. It protects him. It gives GOP cucks plausibility. They can can support conservative initiatives that they are really against and go back home and tell their constituents they tried but due to Senate rules we can’t get those conservative initiatives passed (when they and their lobbyists are not for those initiatives in the first place).
this, exactly this ^^^^^^^
withing 3 minutes of the dims getting 51 votes it will be gone and the dims will laugh and giggle like school girls at the idiot cucks.
the truth is half the republicans are really democrats and they will be exposed as suck and quickly voted out of office if they have no excuses left for not doing what the people demand they do
Posted on 1/21/18 at 10:58 am to truthbetold
quote:
Why not do it, put forward a full appropriations bill, then change it back ?
He doesn’t have 51 votes . 4 Republicans voted against the CR last time . Unless he can get them on board including McCain then it’s not a good idea .
Posted on 1/21/18 at 10:59 am to Jake88
quote:
He should still get credit for icing the Garland nomination.
He should but I will always give Ted Cruz more credit for putting McConnell in a corner on the issue.
Posted on 1/21/18 at 11:49 am to joshnorris14
he does not have the votes for it
no point in bringing it up without a guarantee that it will pass
I don't disagree that republicans should get rid of the filibuster
I just do not think they can
Flake is retiring in AZ, but he is still there now - zero reason for him to vote for a rules change, as he has already acknowledged that he cannot win against a strong primary candidate & will not face the electorate
McCain of AZ has obstructed everything else - I don't see him on board
Graham of SC is a likely no
Collins of ME is a likely no
I am also not sure that Rand Paul would be on board
where do 50 votes come from?
we going to convince Flake & Grahamnesty to do the right thing???
no point in bringing it up without a guarantee that it will pass
I don't disagree that republicans should get rid of the filibuster
I just do not think they can
Flake is retiring in AZ, but he is still there now - zero reason for him to vote for a rules change, as he has already acknowledged that he cannot win against a strong primary candidate & will not face the electorate
McCain of AZ has obstructed everything else - I don't see him on board
Graham of SC is a likely no
Collins of ME is a likely no
I am also not sure that Rand Paul would be on board
where do 50 votes come from?
we going to convince Flake & Grahamnesty to do the right thing???
Posted on 1/21/18 at 11:50 am to tjv305
quote:
He doesn’t have 51 votes . 4 Republicans voted against the CR last time . Unless he can get them on board including McCain then it’s not a good idea .
exactly
Posted on 1/21/18 at 11:51 am to joshnorris14
I wish TRUMP could fire him!
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News