midnight_chopper

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.

quote:

---

We can pass it if we ignore the parliamentarian, change Senate rules, and force endless debate” isn’t a legislative strategy. It’s the political equivalent of a kid explaining how he’d win the Super Bowl if the field were shorter, the clock stopped counting, and touchdowns were worth 50 points.

---

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.

I think their true colors are only revealed when they’re not pandering for votes

quote:

---

the outrage over fixing the reflecting pool has been fascinating to watch.

---

It’s definitely a way to gauge one’s level of TDS.

Can anyone link to what they were told they were performing for and what the event actually is? Everyone that has pulled out has given the same vague reasoning and it’s difficult to know what my level of outrage should be based on those details.