Can Schumer force a vote?

[saveliberty]

Was wondering if this is true, how does a Senate minority force a vote on anything?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said on Saturday he will force a vote soon on a resolution to disapprove the Trump administration's decision to relax sanctions on three Russian companies connected to oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

We need to get rid of McConnell a vote should come up no matter, McConnell seems to work for the Don now.

What you got planned? Some type of coup?

 

[Crepitus]

We no longer have 3 separate but equal parts of our government.

So much for the Constitution huh conservitards?

What are you talking about dummy. Mitch is CHOOSING not to bring things to a vote if he doesn't think Trump will sign them, just as ALL Senate Majority Leaders of the same party as the President have always done.

This is just a stupid argument made by idiots. Can you show me one single example of Harry Reid bringing up a vote on a bill that he KNEW Obama wouldn't sign? Of course not, because why waste their time? Their separate and equal branches of government, but when they are the same party they are going to work together. That's just common sense.

Mitch is following tRump's instructions to the "T".

That ain't how it's supposed to work kid.

So much for the Constitution huh?

Show me where in the Constitution it says anything about the Senate voting on bills they know the President won't sign. You won't be able to, because the COTUS is silent on such.

Meanwhile those with half a brain realize that this is the way it ALWAYS works, there is ZERO point in voting on a bill that A) You know is unlikely to pass to begin with B) You know the President will veto even if it is passed and C) You know you most certainly won't find the votes to override a veto

It would be a complete waste of time.

Where does it say they shouldn't?

Better yet where is the criteria "it must be something the president will sign" mentioned in the Constitution?

Seriously, you're gonna hafta do better than this.

The COTUS doesn't say either way, making YOUR argument stupid and specious.

What does "separate but equal" mean in your world?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

There were only 45 Democrats in the Senate plus two independents, which makes the total 47. Schumer is still in the minority, so it's doubtful that he has the votes to “force” anything.

One female Republican is leaning toward the Democrats position. Schumer can rattle the cage; winning the vote??? That will depend upon public opinion. The media will have to help the Dems. Schumer is just an ugly troll that could be Putin's valet or maybe a bartender in a gay bar.

When has the media not helped the Dems? The media used to be the propaganda wing of the Democrat party, but now they're actually setting policy for them. The lying and dishonest media is now the leader of the Democrat Party.

The media does more than we're aware of. For example, I sat down last Sunday night and there was NCIS Los Angeles. The episode's plot was about anti - immigrant terrorists (sic) with bombs. As soon as that goes off, on comes "Madam Secretary" with a woman obviously trying to play the Hillary Clinton role. She's a presidential candidate that decides to go sit with the children undocumented foreigners and gets her arse tossed in jail just for optics.

In this case, I think the media is about to go full bore commie and it will be relentless propaganda. If this does not motivate people to get off their ass and decide whether they want to keep their guns or build a wall, then nothing will and you can play Taps. It's over.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Was wondering if this is true, how does a Senate minority force a vote on anything?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said on Saturday he will force a vote soon on a resolution to disapprove the Trump administration's decision to relax sanctions on three Russian companies connected to oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

We need to get rid of McConnell a vote should come up no matter, McConnell seems to work for the Don now.

Come on down to my state and register to vote in the next election for the Senate. That's the only way to get rid of McConnell!

 

[Picaro]

The Legislative Process: Senate Floor (Video)


Rules Of The Senate | U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration

https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-ther...-a-bill-being-brought-to-the-floor-for-a-vote

Check out how they spent their time last year.

Legislation | U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration

Hearings | U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration

They aren't very productive, imo.

 

[Auld Phart]

What are you talking about dummy. Mitch is CHOOSING not to bring things to a vote if he doesn't think Trump will sign them, just as ALL Senate Majority Leaders of the same party as the President have always done.

This is just a stupid argument made by idiots. Can you show me one single example of Harry Reid bringing up a vote on a bill that he KNEW Obama wouldn't sign? Of course not, because why waste their time? Their separate and equal branches of government, but when they are the same party they are going to work together. That's just common sense.

Mitch is following tRump's instructions to the "T".

That ain't how it's supposed to work kid.

So much for the Constitution huh?

Show me where in the Constitution it says anything about the Senate voting on bills they know the President won't sign. You won't be able to, because the COTUS is silent on such.

Meanwhile those with half a brain realize that this is the way it ALWAYS works, there is ZERO point in voting on a bill that A) You know is unlikely to pass to begin with B) You know the President will veto even if it is passed and C) You know you most certainly won't find the votes to override a veto

It would be a complete waste of time.

Where does it say they shouldn't?

Better yet where is the criteria "it must be something the president will sign" mentioned in the Constitution?

Seriously, you're gonna hafta do better than this.

The COTUS doesn't say either way, making YOUR argument stupid and specious.

What does "separate but equal" mean in your world?

What does "separate but equal" mean in your world?

The same as it meant when the Dems held Congress, and later when Reid was lead in the Senate.

His job was to push Obamas agenda, just as it is McConnells to push Trumps.

Because, for the last XX years, Congress has NOT worked for the country, they work for the PARTY.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Mitch is following tRump's instructions to the "T".

That ain't how it's supposed to work kid.

So much for the Constitution huh?

Show me where in the Constitution it says anything about the Senate voting on bills they know the President won't sign. You won't be able to, because the COTUS is silent on such.

Meanwhile those with half a brain realize that this is the way it ALWAYS works, there is ZERO point in voting on a bill that A) You know is unlikely to pass to begin with B) You know the President will veto even if it is passed and C) You know you most certainly won't find the votes to override a veto

It would be a complete waste of time.

Where does it say they shouldn't?

Better yet where is the criteria "it must be something the president will sign" mentioned in the Constitution?

Seriously, you're gonna hafta do better than this.

The COTUS doesn't say either way, making YOUR argument stupid and specious.

What does "separate but equal" mean in your world?

What does "separate but equal" mean in your world?

The same as it meant when the Dems held Congress, and later when Reid was lead in the Senate.

His job was to push Obamas agenda, just as it is McConnells to push Trumps.

Because, for the last XX years, Congress has NOT worked for the country, they work for the PARTY.

I would respect his opinion if I didn't absolutely KNOW that he had no problem with Reid pushing Obama's agenda and not allowing a vote on any bills Obama wouldn't sign.

Myself, I have common sense so I can see why the Senate Majority leader or Speaker of the House would not push for legislation that they knew they probably couldn't pass anyway, and if they did the POTUS would veto it and they most certainly wouldn't have the votes to over ride a veto.

 

[Crepitus]

Show me where in the Constitution it says anything about the Senate voting on bills they know the President won't sign. You won't be able to, because the COTUS is silent on such.

Meanwhile those with half a brain realize that this is the way it ALWAYS works, there is ZERO point in voting on a bill that A) You know is unlikely to pass to begin with B) You know the President will veto even if it is passed and C) You know you most certainly won't find the votes to override a veto

It would be a complete waste of time.

Where does it say they shouldn't?

Better yet where is the criteria "it must be something the president will sign" mentioned in the Constitution?

Seriously, you're gonna hafta do better than this.

The COTUS doesn't say either way, making YOUR argument stupid and specious.

What does "separate but equal" mean in your world?

What does "separate but equal" mean in your world?

The same as it meant when the Dems held Congress, and later when Reid was lead in the Senate.

His job was to push Obamas agenda, just as it is McConnells to push Trumps.

Because, for the last XX years, Congress has NOT worked for the country, they work for the PARTY.

I would respect his opinion if I didn't absolutely KNOW that he had no problem with Reid pushing Obama's agenda and not allowing a vote on any bills Obama wouldn't sign.

Myself, I have common sense so I can see why the Senate Majority leader or Speaker of the House would not push for legislation that they knew they probably couldn't pass anyway, and if they did the POTUS would veto it and they most certainly wouldn't have the votes to over ride a veto.

Please post a link to Reid saying he wouldn't bring any bill President Obama would not sign to the floor.

I'm not gonna hold my breath.

 

[Auld Phart]

Where does it say they shouldn't?

Better yet where is the criteria "it must be something the president will sign" mentioned in the Constitution?

Seriously, you're gonna hafta do better than this.

The COTUS doesn't say either way, making YOUR argument stupid and specious.

What does "separate but equal" mean in your world?

What does "separate but equal" mean in your world?

The same as it meant when the Dems held Congress, and later when Reid was lead in the Senate.

His job was to push Obamas agenda, just as it is McConnells to push Trumps.

Because, for the last XX years, Congress has NOT worked for the country, they work for the PARTY.

I would respect his opinion if I didn't absolutely KNOW that he had no problem with Reid pushing Obama's agenda and not allowing a vote on any bills Obama wouldn't sign.

Myself, I have common sense so I can see why the Senate Majority leader or Speaker of the House would not push for legislation that they knew they probably couldn't pass anyway, and if they did the POTUS would veto it and they most certainly wouldn't have the votes to over ride a veto.

Please post a link to Reid saying he wouldn't bring any bill President Obama would not sign to the floor.

I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Why would you need a link showing him making a statement like that?

Didn't his actions prove it?

Or were you in a coma during his tenure?

 

[DandyDonovan]

Where does it say they shouldn't?

Better yet where is the criteria "it must be something the president will sign" mentioned in the Constitution?

Seriously, you're gonna hafta do better than this.

The COTUS doesn't say either way, making YOUR argument stupid and specious.

What does "separate but equal" mean in your world?

What does "separate but equal" mean in your world?

The same as it meant when the Dems held Congress, and later when Reid was lead in the Senate.

His job was to push Obamas agenda, just as it is McConnells to push Trumps.

Because, for the last XX years, Congress has NOT worked for the country, they work for the PARTY.

I would respect his opinion if I didn't absolutely KNOW that he had no problem with Reid pushing Obama's agenda and not allowing a vote on any bills Obama wouldn't sign.

Myself, I have common sense so I can see why the Senate Majority leader or Speaker of the House would not push for legislation that they knew they probably couldn't pass anyway, and if they did the POTUS would veto it and they most certainly wouldn't have the votes to over ride a veto.

Please post a link to Reid saying he wouldn't bring any bill President Obama would not sign to the floor.

I'm not gonna hold my breath.

I didn't say he said it dummy. I said he didn't. can you name a single bill that Reid brought to the Senate floor that he knew Obama would veto?

Again, this isn't evil, or stupid , or anything else. It's pragmatic. A same party Senate Majority Leader and President are going to work together and that obviously includes not embarrassing said President by passing legislation that he won't sign.

 

[Crepitus]

The COTUS doesn't say either way, making YOUR argument stupid and specious.

What does "separate but equal" mean in your world?

What does "separate but equal" mean in your world?

The same as it meant when the Dems held Congress, and later when Reid was lead in the Senate.

His job was to push Obamas agenda, just as it is McConnells to push Trumps.

Because, for the last XX years, Congress has NOT worked for the country, they work for the PARTY.

I would respect his opinion if I didn't absolutely KNOW that he had no problem with Reid pushing Obama's agenda and not allowing a vote on any bills Obama wouldn't sign.

Myself, I have common sense so I can see why the Senate Majority leader or Speaker of the House would not push for legislation that they knew they probably couldn't pass anyway, and if they did the POTUS would veto it and they most certainly wouldn't have the votes to over ride a veto.

Please post a link to Reid saying he wouldn't bring any bill President Obama would not sign to the floor.

I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Why would you need a link showing him making a statement like that?

Didn't his actions prove it?

Or were you in a coma during his tenure?

Ok, so you can't produce a link to back up your assertion. Can you produce a link to him doing what you say he did?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Mitch will not allow a vote on anything Trump does not support

McConnell's history of nonfeasance, misfeasance and malfeasance is shameful, anti-democratic and potentially criminal since he wife's employment in the Trump Administration is a conflict of interest.

 

[Indeependent]

What does "separate but equal" mean in your world?

What does "separate but equal" mean in your world?

The same as it meant when the Dems held Congress, and later when Reid was lead in the Senate.

His job was to push Obamas agenda, just as it is McConnells to push Trumps.

Because, for the last XX years, Congress has NOT worked for the country, they work for the PARTY.

I would respect his opinion if I didn't absolutely KNOW that he had no problem with Reid pushing Obama's agenda and not allowing a vote on any bills Obama wouldn't sign.

Myself, I have common sense so I can see why the Senate Majority leader or Speaker of the House would not push for legislation that they knew they probably couldn't pass anyway, and if they did the POTUS would veto it and they most certainly wouldn't have the votes to over ride a veto.

Please post a link to Reid saying he wouldn't bring any bill President Obama would not sign to the floor.

I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Why would you need a link showing him making a statement like that?

Didn't his actions prove it?

Or were you in a coma during his tenure?

Ok, so you can't produce a link to back up your assertion. Can you produce a link to him doing what you say he did?

Harry Reid’s 5 Lobbyist SONS

Grow up; every professional politician is bought and paid for.

 

[Auld Phart]

What does "separate but equal" mean in your world?

What does "separate but equal" mean in your world?

The same as it meant when the Dems held Congress, and later when Reid was lead in the Senate.

His job was to push Obamas agenda, just as it is McConnells to push Trumps.

Because, for the last XX years, Congress has NOT worked for the country, they work for the PARTY.

I would respect his opinion if I didn't absolutely KNOW that he had no problem with Reid pushing Obama's agenda and not allowing a vote on any bills Obama wouldn't sign.

Myself, I have common sense so I can see why the Senate Majority leader or Speaker of the House would not push for legislation that they knew they probably couldn't pass anyway, and if they did the POTUS would veto it and they most certainly wouldn't have the votes to over ride a veto.

Please post a link to Reid saying he wouldn't bring any bill President Obama would not sign to the floor.

I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Why would you need a link showing him making a statement like that?

Didn't his actions prove it?

Or were you in a coma during his tenure?

Ok, so you can't produce a link to back up your assertion. Can you produce a link to him doing what you say he did?

2010, Senate sitting on 290 bills passed in the House
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/83059-senate-sitting-on-290-house-bills

and only got worse.

 

[DandyDonovan]

The same as it meant when the Dems held Congress, and later when Reid was lead in the Senate.

His job was to push Obamas agenda, just as it is McConnells to push Trumps.

Because, for the last XX years, Congress has NOT worked for the country, they work for the PARTY.

I would respect his opinion if I didn't absolutely KNOW that he had no problem with Reid pushing Obama's agenda and not allowing a vote on any bills Obama wouldn't sign.

Myself, I have common sense so I can see why the Senate Majority leader or Speaker of the House would not push for legislation that they knew they probably couldn't pass anyway, and if they did the POTUS would veto it and they most certainly wouldn't have the votes to over ride a veto.

Please post a link to Reid saying he wouldn't bring any bill President Obama would not sign to the floor.

I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Why would you need a link showing him making a statement like that?

Didn't his actions prove it?

Or were you in a coma during his tenure?

Ok, so you can't produce a link to back up your assertion. Can you produce a link to him doing what you say he did?

2010, Senate sitting on 290 bills passed in the House
Senate sitting on 290 bills already passed by House; tension mounts

and only got worse.

That's what happens when you have one party in charge of one house and the other party in charge of the other. More American stupidity in action.

I think it was candycorn in another thread who said that she thinks that if the House passed a bill the Senate should have to vote on it within 2 or 3 weeks , and visa versa. And I agree. At least make the sumbitches get on record .

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Was wondering if this is true, how does a Senate minority force a vote on anything?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said on Saturday he will force a vote soon on a resolution to disapprove the Trump administration's decision to relax sanctions on three Russian companies connected to oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

We need to get rid of McConnell a vote should come up no matter, McConnell seems to work for the Don now.

I don't recall you whining when Reid did the same for Obama.

 

[Crepitus]

The same as it meant when the Dems held Congress, and later when Reid was lead in the Senate.

His job was to push Obamas agenda, just as it is McConnells to push Trumps.

Because, for the last XX years, Congress has NOT worked for the country, they work for the PARTY.

I would respect his opinion if I didn't absolutely KNOW that he had no problem with Reid pushing Obama's agenda and not allowing a vote on any bills Obama wouldn't sign.

Myself, I have common sense so I can see why the Senate Majority leader or Speaker of the House would not push for legislation that they knew they probably couldn't pass anyway, and if they did the POTUS would veto it and they most certainly wouldn't have the votes to over ride a veto.

Please post a link to Reid saying he wouldn't bring any bill President Obama would not sign to the floor.

I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Why would you need a link showing him making a statement like that?

Didn't his actions prove it?

Or were you in a coma during his tenure?

Ok, so you can't produce a link to back up your assertion. Can you produce a link to him doing what you say he did?

2010, Senate sitting on 290 bills passed in the House
Senate sitting on 290 bills already passed by House; tension mounts

and only got worse.

Mostly that was garbage sent up.for the purpose of making the Democrats look bad.

 

[DandyDonovan]

I would respect his opinion if I didn't absolutely KNOW that he had no problem with Reid pushing Obama's agenda and not allowing a vote on any bills Obama wouldn't sign.

Myself, I have common sense so I can see why the Senate Majority leader or Speaker of the House would not push for legislation that they knew they probably couldn't pass anyway, and if they did the POTUS would veto it and they most certainly wouldn't have the votes to over ride a veto.

Please post a link to Reid saying he wouldn't bring any bill President Obama would not sign to the floor.

I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Why would you need a link showing him making a statement like that?

Didn't his actions prove it?

Or were you in a coma during his tenure?

Ok, so you can't produce a link to back up your assertion. Can you produce a link to him doing what you say he did?

2010, Senate sitting on 290 bills passed in the House
Senate sitting on 290 bills already passed by House; tension mounts

and only got worse.

Mostly that was garbage sent up.for the purpose of making the Democrats look bad.

You have an excuse for everything don't you.

You know what would make debating a lot easier for you? If you had any principles. For example, if you didn't say something was bad when one party did it and then try to deny the other party did the same thing.

 

[Auld Phart]

I would respect his opinion if I didn't absolutely KNOW that he had no problem with Reid pushing Obama's agenda and not allowing a vote on any bills Obama wouldn't sign.

Myself, I have common sense so I can see why the Senate Majority leader or Speaker of the House would not push for legislation that they knew they probably couldn't pass anyway, and if they did the POTUS would veto it and they most certainly wouldn't have the votes to over ride a veto.

Please post a link to Reid saying he wouldn't bring any bill President Obama would not sign to the floor.

I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Why would you need a link showing him making a statement like that?

Didn't his actions prove it?

Or were you in a coma during his tenure?

Ok, so you can't produce a link to back up your assertion. Can you produce a link to him doing what you say he did?

2010, Senate sitting on 290 bills passed in the House
Senate sitting on 290 bills already passed by House; tension mounts

and only got worse.

Mostly that was garbage sent up.for the purpose of making the Democrats look bad.

Yes...

REID decided it was garbage, and tabled it.

and, by doing so, made the Democrats look bad.

 

[Indeependent]

Please post a link to Reid saying he wouldn't bring any bill President Obama would not sign to the floor.

I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Why would you need a link showing him making a statement like that?

Didn't his actions prove it?

Or were you in a coma during his tenure?

Ok, so you can't produce a link to back up your assertion. Can you produce a link to him doing what you say he did?

2010, Senate sitting on 290 bills passed in the House
Senate sitting on 290 bills already passed by House; tension mounts

and only got worse.

Mostly that was garbage sent up.for the purpose of making the Democrats look bad.

Yes...

REID decided it was garbage, and tabled it.

and, by doing so, made the Democrats look bad.

Reid did what he was paid to do, just like any other politician.