Chuck Schumer is going to force Democrats to go on record on trashing the filibuster.

[pknopp]

they would be hypocrites if they kept changing this law every election.

have they done that?

If they argued to change it back after losing and then gaining power back would they be hypocrites? Yes very much so just like the Republicans were on voting for a Supreme Court justice in an election year.

 

[iceberg]

If they argued to change it back after losing and then gaining power back would they be hypocrites? Yes very much so just like the Republicans were on voting for a Supreme Court justice in an election year.

i intentionally kept it to one topic and not bounced around to say AND THEY DO IT TOO as those discussions never get anywhere.

and i think things like the SCOTUS crap is crap. set policy, clarify when a president can and can't nominate someone, and be done with it. both sides abuse this and i think that's how they want it. otherwise they would fix it.

have a filibuster or don't - but stop changing it to help YOUR SIDE ONLY esp after you used it 314 or more times in recent years.

now, when have the R's ever said NO YOU DON'T NEED AN ID? for your "hypocrites to fully work then we need to show when they were in favor of this policy and when it changed (if it did) and why (if it did)

but it's much more fun to simply accuse and distribute guilt around to many parties and go "SEE???"

 

[Nostra]

If they argued to change it back after losing and then gaining power back would they be hypocrites? Yes very much so just like the Republicans were on voting for a Supreme Court justice in an election year.

So, arguing against getting rid of it when you are not in the majority....then arguing to get rid of it when you are in the majority isn't hypocrisy?

Try to stay on topic and not attempt to deflect to unrelated bullshit.

 

[pknopp]

i intentionally kept it to one topic and not bounced around to say AND THEY DO IT TOO as those discussions never get anywhere.

And I said it would be hypocritical.

 

[pknopp]

So, arguing against getting rid of it when you are not in the majority....then arguing to get rid of it when you are in the majority isn't hypocrisy?

Try to stay on topic and not attempt to deflect to unrelated bullshit.

I can not solve your inability to read.

 

[iceberg]

And I said it would be hypocritical.

nevermind. you did the change topics and never answer original point dance so im done.

 

[pknopp]

nevermind. you did the change topics and never answer original point dance so im done.

I did answer what I can answer. I can not answer something we have not come to yet.

 

[struth]

So Cryin' Chucky is going to force a vote that isn't even close and makes him look like an idiot for pushing it.

Let's show America just how bi-partisan it is to oppose what Schumer wants.

Great strategery.

there appears the only bipartisan agreement in washington is against xiden, and chuck’s tyranny

 

[basquebromance]

yea, that must be it.

if you endorse the big lie, Trump will endorse you. if you don't, Trump will UNLEASH HIS FURY

can you explain why that is?

 

[iceberg]

I did answer what I can answer. I can not answer something we have not come to yet.

pknopp said:
Republicans want photo voters registration cards. For decades they have voted without them. Hypocrites?

they voted without them, as far as i know, only when not required. you're saying following the law while wanting it changed is hypocritical?

the hypocrisy is when they have "power" and want restraints taken off but as soon as that "power" is gone, the restraints must come back. they argue either way is the death of democracy when in the end it's simply "no you are not power absolute".

it would also be hypocritical if they demanded voter ID's, got them, THEN didn't want them followed for XYZ reason. but they've not done that, have they?

you're mixing the 2 where they simply don't *BOTH* go the distance to hypocrisy.

 

[pknopp]

pknopp said:
Republicans want photo voters registration cards. For decades they have voted without them. Hypocrites?

they voted without them, as far as i know, only when not required. you're saying following the law while wanting it changed is hypocritical?

That's been the entire argument overall. Dem's used the filibuster when it was the rule but they want it changed.

the hypocrisy is when they have "power" and want restraints taken off but as soon as that "power" is gone, the restraints must come back. they argue either way is the death of democracy when in the end it's simply "no you are not power absolute".

That has not happened. That has not been proposed. Would I be surprised if Democrats argued it at some point? No.

it would also be hypocritical if they demanded voter ID's, got them, THEN didn't want them followed for XYZ reason. but they've not done that, have they?

you're mixing the 2 where they simply don't *BOTH* go the distance to hypocrisy.

You are demonizing people for something they have not done. I am stating what has been done.

 

[iceberg]

That's been the entire argument overall. Dem's used the filibuster when it was the rule but they want it changed.

they want it changed EVERY TIME to suit their benefit. not change it to re-establish rules and then abide by them. HUGE difference.

That has not happened. That has not been proposed. Would I be surprised if Democrats argued it at some point? No.

in 2006 schurmer said getting rid of the filibuster would kill democracy.
in 2022 schurmer said keeping the filibuster will kill democracy.

it has happened. they have proven they want the rules changed not to re-establish rules for common ground, but for their own benefit.

You are demonizing people for something they have not done. I am stating what has been done.

i have not demonized anyone. i said these actions were not done and ...

nevermind.

have a day.

 

[pknopp]

they want it changed EVERY TIME to suit their benefit.

I have zero desire to discuss something that has not happened.

 

[iceberg]

I have zero desire to discuss something that has not happened.

you and reality need to come to grips soon.

What Chuck Schumer said about the filibuster when the shoe was on the other foot

Now that Democrats have the Senate majority, Sen. Chuck Schumer is arguing strenuously for sidelining the filibuster to “wash away 200 years of history.”

nypost.com

Chuck Schumer’s filibuster hypocrisy

Hypocrisy and lies from politicians are so rampant in Washington that hardly anyone pays them much attention anymore.

www.washingtontimes.com

Chuck Schumer on the filibuster in 2017: If you can't get 60 votes, 'you shouldn't change the rules'

The Senate Majority Leader is leading the effort to gut the filibuster in order to pass legislation to federalize elections.

www.foxnews.com

IF YOU CAN'T GET 60 VOTES YOU SHOULD NOT CHANGE THE RULES.

it has happened. the dems defended it when it was useful to them, demonize it now that it's in their way. so don't give me whatever shit you're trying to give me about hypocrisy and republicans voting w/o a voter ID card *if* not required.

not the same thing AT ALL.

 

[iceberg]

I have zero desire to discuss something that has not happened.

then speak to todays hypocrisy or hide behind verbiage you disagree with.

your choice.

 

[Nostra]

I have zero desire to discuss something that has not happened.

It's happening now.

 

[pknopp]

you and reality need to come to grips soon.

What Chuck Schumer said about the filibuster when the shoe was on the other foot

Now that Democrats have the Senate majority, Sen. Chuck Schumer is arguing strenuously for sidelining the filibuster to “wash away 200 years of history.”

nypost.com

Chuck Schumer’s filibuster hypocrisy

Hypocrisy and lies from politicians are so rampant in Washington that hardly anyone pays them much attention anymore.

www.washingtontimes.com

Chuck Schumer on the filibuster in 2017: If you can't get 60 votes, 'you shouldn't change the rules'

The Senate Majority Leader is leading the effort to gut the filibuster in order to pass legislation to federalize elections.

www.foxnews.com

IF YOU CAN'T GET 60 VOTES YOU SHOULD NOT CHANGE THE RULES.

it has happened. the dems defended it when it was useful to them, demonize it now that it's in their way. so don't give me whatever shit you're trying to give me about hypocrisy and republicans voting w/o a voter ID card *if* not required.

not the same thing AT ALL.

Yes he said that in the past. Graham said that votes on Supreme Court justices shouldn't be voted on in election years also. The two parties are nothing but hypocritical but that does not back your predictions for the future.

 

[Nostra]

Yes he said that in the past. Graham said that votes on Supreme Court justices shouldn't be voted on in election years also. The two parties are nothing but hypocritical but that does not back your predictions for the future.

Whataboutism is all you have, loser.

 

[Lesh]

Don’t even talk about hypocrisy when you have McConnell and Graham and many others flip flopping all over the place

 

[Nostra]

Don’t even talk about hypocrisy when you have McConnell and Graham and many others flip flopping all over the place

More whataboutism. It's as if that is all Dimtards have.

Sad, really.