DADT possible vote tonight!

Riot · #1 12-08-2010, 02:28 PM

Wow, they may get to DADT vote in the Senate tonight - Reid is going to bring the appropriations bill with the DADT repeal, and they think they have the 60 votes, via GOP defections, to overcome the Republican filibuster!**

(** yes, remember the GOP has routinely filibustered everything brought to the floor in the Senate this past year, so it always takes 60 votes to bring up, discuss, or pass bills that our Constitution says takes a majority of 51. Weird "Obama Obstruction on Everything Rules" the GOP has made. So this appropriations bill, even though it has far more than 51 votes and would pass easily and routinely in any other Senate than Minority Leader Mitch McConnel's, first has to have 60 votes for cloture so it can be discussed then voted upon. But if there's 60 to break the Republican filibuster, there's 60 for the bill. If not - then DADT is dead for this Congress. Good for Majority Leader Reid for bringing it up!)

SOREHOOF · #2 12-08-2010, 02:35 PM

I'm just glad the Repubs were able to stop TARP, The Stimulus, Omnibus Spending Bill, and Obamacare. Or we would really be in the hole!

Riot · #3 12-08-2010, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

I'm just glad the Repubs were able to stop TARP, The Stimulus, Omnibus Spending Bill, and Obamacare. Or we would really be in the hole!

See other thread. BTW, one of the above is NOT Obama, and has nothing to do with him. Just sayin'

Cannon Shell · #4 12-08-2010, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Wow, they may get to DADT vote in the Senate tonight - Reid is going to bring the appropriations bill with the DADT repeal, and they think they have the 60 votes, via GOP defections, to overcome the Republican filibuster!**

(** yes, remember the GOP has routinely filibustered everything brought to the floor in the Senate this past year, so it always takes 60 votes to bring up, discuss, or pass bills that our Constitution says takes a majority of 51. Weird "Obama Obstruction on Everything Rules" the GOP has made. So this appropriations bill, even though it has far more than 51 votes and would pass easily and routinely in any other Senate than Minority Leader Mitch McConnel's, first has to have 60 votes for cloture so it can be discussed then voted upon. But if there's 60 to break the Republican filibuster, there's 60 for the bill. If not - then DADT is dead for this Congress. Good for Majority Leader Reid for bringing it up!)

You say this like it is a bad thing...

Riot · #5 12-08-2010, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You say this like it is a bad thing...

There are multiple plans to amend the filibuster rules so that first, the filibustering party has to physically hold the floor, instead of simply saying "filibuster!" and going home or to the bar for the week it takes to work that out

I think that's good. It will make C-Span tons more interesting to watch.

Then not including the ability to filibuster certain types of bills that Senators can already hold up by themselves, I think that's good, too.

And there's a really cool suggestion that once a filibuster is in place, that as time goes on (two days, four days) the number of votes it takes to overcome decrease. 60 in the first two days, 57 after than, then 53, etc.

The Dems will do something, I'm sure, in January. The past 2 years has been seriously ridiculous. There are over 400 bills the house has passed, that the Senate hasn't yet looked at, during the past 2 years. Just queued up, waiting.

SOREHOOF · #6 12-08-2010, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

See other thread. BTW, one of the above is NOT Obama, and has nothing to do with him. Just sayin'

Bush bequeathed half of the TARP package to Obama. Roughly $350 Billion to him. I didn't see anything on the HuffPooPoo saying he turned it down or gave it back. Obama voted for TARP as a US Senator so I'd say it had a little something to do with him. He was already Prez-Elect at the time I believe. This doubles as my response to you in the other thread. I can't keep them straight anymore.

Riot · #7 12-08-2010, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

This doubles as my response to you in the other thread. I can't keep them straight anymore.

By this time, I think we all basically know where we stand on stuff political

SOREHOOF · #8 12-08-2010, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

There are multiple plans to amend the filibuster rules so that first, the filibustering party has to physically hold the floor, instead of simply saying "filibuster!" and going home or to the bar for the week it takes to work that out

I think that's good. It will make C-Span tons more interesting to watch.

Then not including the ability to filibuster certain types of bills that Senators can already hold up by themselves, I think that's good, too.

And there's a really cool suggestion that once a filibuster is in place, that as time goes on (two days, four days) the number of votes it takes to overcome decrease. 60 in the first two days, 57 after than, then 53, etc.

The Dems will do something, I'm sure, in January. The past 2 years has been seriously ridiculous. There are over 400 bills the house has passed, that the Senate hasn't yet looked at, during the past 2 years. Just queued up, waiting.

They should leave the fillibuster alone. I said the same thing when the Repubs had control. The Dems will rue the day they change the rules, just like the Repubs would if they did. It's only a matter of time before the new party in charge wears out their welcome. Most people are sick of all of these 2 faced lying thieves in office.

SOREHOOF · #9 12-08-2010, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

By this time, I think we all basically know where we stand on stuff political

Sometimes you surprise me!

Antitrust32 · #10 12-08-2010, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

See other thread. BTW, one of the above is NOT Obama, and has nothing to do with him. Just sayin'

well he voted for it while being a senator and talked it up while running for prez so i wouldnt go as far as saying it had nothing to do with him.

Antitrust32 · #11 12-08-2010, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

There are multiple plans to amend the filibuster rules so that first, the filibustering party has to physically hold the floor, instead of simply saying "filibuster!" and going home or to the bar for the week it takes to work that out

I think that's good. It will make C-Span tons more interesting to watch.

Then not including the ability to filibuster certain types of bills that Senators can already hold up by themselves, I think that's good, too.

And there's a really cool suggestion that once a filibuster is in place, that as time goes on (two days, four days) the number of votes it takes to overcome decrease. 60 in the first two days, 57 after than, then 53, etc.

The Dems will do something, I'm sure, in January. The past 2 years has been seriously ridiculous. There are over 400 bills the house has passed, that the Senate hasn't yet looked at, during the past 2 years. Just queued up, waiting.

the founding fathers wanted the filibuster to be used. They didnt think it was good precident that if one party has a majority, they can just pass anything they want through.

the founding fathers actually thought the smaller amount of bills passed, the better for the country.

SOREHOOF · #12 12-08-2010, 04:01 PM

Eventually China is going to get sick and tired of financing Americas social programs. The interest on the debt is a HUGE part of the Federal Budget.

SOREHOOF · #13 12-08-2010, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

the founding fathers wanted the filibuster to be used. They didnt think it was good precident that if one party has a majority, they can just pass anything they want through.

the founding fathers actually thought the smaller amount of bills passed, the better for the country.

No Bill should be longer than the Constitution. These crooks vote for bills they haven't read. That is insanity.

Riot · #14 12-08-2010, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Sometimes you surprise me!

I currently have a hunting license in two states

I like politics, and I like arguing about politics.

Antitrust32 · #15 12-08-2010, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

I currently have a hunting license in two states

I like politics, and I like arguing about politics.

noooooooooooooooo, really?

SOREHOOF · #16 12-08-2010, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

I currently have a hunting license in two states

I like politics, and I like arguing about politics.

I'm currently getting ready to chow down on some nice fresh venison! MMM MMM! Smells great ! Backstraps!

Riot · #17 12-08-2010, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

I'm currently getting ready to chow down on some nice fresh venison! MMM MMM! Smells great ! Backstraps!

I had an office manager, part of his contract was he got three days off when bow season opened

timmgirvan · #18 12-08-2010, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

By this time, I think we all basically know where we stand on stuff political

yeah...but you keep drinking the kool-aid!

Riot · #19 12-08-2010, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

yeah...but you keep drinking the kool-aid!

I was a member of that congregation, I was kidnapped and deprogrammed

Riot · #20 12-08-2010, 07:25 PM

How one GOP Senator is holding up having DADT come to the floor via filibuster (vote now moved to tomorrow)

Quote:

Here's what Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that she needs to support a full Senate debate on the defense authorization bill (the vehicle for Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal): 15 guaranteed votes on amendments (10 for Republicans, and 5 for Democrats), and somewhere around four days to debate the bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid already promised her the 15 amendments, but his initial offer was for a day or two of debate. Here's her response to reporters tonight, after a Senate vote.

"The majority leader's allotment of time for to debate those amendments was extremely short, so I have suggested doubling the amount of time, assuring that there would be votes, and making sure that the Republicans get to pick our own amendments as opposed to the Majority Leader."

"If he does that I will do all that I can to help him proceed to the bill. But if he does not do that, then I will not," she added.

Late this evening, per Collins' request, Reid delayed a test vote he'd planned to hold tonight.

Via TPM