midnight_chopper

quote:

---

It sounds like he's saying that destroying American cities and their populations are okay. What am I missing....or do I have TDS??

---

How someone interprets what he said as saying that bombing the cities is a small price to pay tells me all I need to know about their level of TDS. He says a lot of stupid things, but this is not one of them. He did not say it eloquently, but anyone that does not hear it through partisan ears can tell what he meant.

Sorry, I only skimmed through the OP and instead only read the posted article all the way through several times. I even went back after you pointed out and read the article again two more times before I finally realized you said it was in the OP.

quote:

---

Just trying to find the line where you blame the judge

---

I would suggest starting with when there is an actual guilty verdict that requires sentencing.

quote:

---

Your self awareness isn't just lacking, it's non-existent.

---

She is aware of what she is doing, However, in her mind, her cause is just and noble, so it’s different.

Would you prefer the incorrect-irrelevant information?

Am I the only one who has no idea what i’m supposed to be inferring from these Q posts?

Yeah, how the ref doesn’t give at least one throw in on our third was boo worthy.

quote:

---

Notice how every step of your argument requires you to tell me what I secretly believe. That’s because you’ve stopped defending the claim and started inventing motives for anyone who questions it. If Lee’s position is as strong as you think it is, it shouldn’t require mind-reading to defend.

---

Considering the first step of your argument required not knowing what the actual filibuster rules were, you should probably refrain from telling me about inventing motives for questioning his position.

quote:

---

Even if the procedural path exists, Lee’s confidence that it would succeed depends on assumptions about Democratic behavior, republican unity, senate scheduling, and political incentives that haven’t been demonstrated.

---

So what you’re saying is that since it might be hard and it might not work, they shouldn’t try. You oppose the bill and I think you’re afraid if they tried they might succeed. I think Thune and Corynyn are afraid to try for the same reason.

quote:

---

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.

---

So, the OP stated that Lee indicated there are options including a true filibuster. I posted that the senate is lazy because they won’t actually push a true filibuster, You did not even know that the true filibuster had a limit on how many times each senator could speak. And I’m the one that moved the discussion?

It is not theoretically possible. It is actually possible, it is just hard and will require the Republican majority to be inconvenienced for a while. 70% of the electorate supports this bill. I can almost guarantee if they push a true filibuster, it’s going to take as much political will from the Democrats to openly filibuster this as it will take Republicans to push the filibuster.

quote:

---

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

---

I’m sure Crystal is having trouble logging on to admit that what Lee said was correct now that he has a better understanding of the actual filibuster rules.