Can Schumer force a vote?

[task0778]

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.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

By having Pelosi threaten to wear a negligee.

 

[Coyote]

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.

There are probably Republicans who aren’t happy about relaxing those sanctions either.

 

[task0778]

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.

There are probably Republicans who aren’t happy about relaxing those sanctions either.

I get that, but isn't it up to McConnell whether or not anything makes it to the Senate floor for a vote? Would he allow such a vote that embarrasses his president, or more to the point, could he prevent it?

 

[Oddball]

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.

By having Pelosi threaten to wear a negligee.

 

[william the wie]

Schumer is proof dementia can be contagious, He's hung out with Nancy for too long.

 

[task0778]

Schumer is proof dementia can be contagious, He's hung out with Nancy for too long.

You've been at the USMB for how long? There are dots to be connected .....

 

[JGalt]

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.

 

[rightwinger]

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

 

[Penelope]

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.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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

As was the case when Obama was President and Reid was Majority Leader in the Senate.

Doing otherwise would be stupid. Why would you as Majority Leader even bother voting on a bill that you knew would not be signed by your same party President? Duh

 

[blackhawk]

I highly doubt Schumer can force a vote if there was a way for the minority to force a vote in the Senate the Republicans would have done it when Harry Reid and the Democrats controlled the Senate and it was the place votes went to die.

 

[Crepitus]

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

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

So much for the Constitution huh conservitards?

 

[DandyDonovan]

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

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.

 

[Crepitus]

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

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?

 

[DandyDonovan]

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

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.

 

[Crepitus]

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

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.

 

[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.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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

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.

 

[JGalt]

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.