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

[Burgermeister]

When the House Minority Leader can publicly say "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” and keep her job, the stupid bar is ridiculously low and Schumer flip-flopping won't even get covered by MSM.

 

[iceberg]

It gets so old discussing things with lazy people such as yourself. My opinion on this all along is that the Democrats would regret it. Just because I wouldn't support your future predictions only means that. I'm not going to condemn people for something that hasn't happened.

no, you simply resort to attacks.

sigh.

they have proven to do whatever it takes to get what they want. it's not an unreasonable leap to see them embrace the filibuster when it suits their purposes.

again.

you can treat each instance as new and rehash it every time, but this is how problems never get resolved.

no I won't insult you back. I simply disagree I'm wrong in what will happen end of this year.

 

[pknopp]

no, you simply resort to attacks.

sigh.

they have proven to do whatever it takes to get what they want. it's not an unreasonable leap to see them embrace the filibuster when it suits their purposes.

again.

you can treat each instance as new and rehash it every time, but this is how problems never get resolved.

no I won't insult you back. I simply disagree I'm wrong in what will happen end of this year.

They can't even change it now.

 

[iceberg]

They can't even change it now.

they shouldn't even be trying to.

we've agreed on the rule of "fair play" - play by them. if you really want to change them, you need a better reason than YOU'RE KILLING DEMOCRACY *and* both sides need to benefit from the changes and agree to them.

you change the rules to make an effort to keep "the game" fair. you don't change them to gain advantage. you do it once you'll continue to do so if allowed.

 

[pknopp]

they shouldn't even be trying to.

we've agreed on the rule of "fair play" - play by them. if you really want to change them, you need a better reason than YOU'RE KILLING DEMOCRACY *and* both sides need to benefit from the changes and agree to them.

you change the rules to make an effort to keep "the game" fair. you don't change them to gain advantage. you do it once you'll continue to do so if allowed.

LOL, I'm not going to change them. They have no reason to care what I say.

 

[iceberg]

LOL, I'm not going to change them. They have no reason to care what I say.

you've argued that:
1. they have every right to change rules
2. i should not be able to discuss future actions based off their past ones.

so, at this point you have no point, you're just typing words on a screen and saying you don't matter.

and yet you call *me the "lazy" one.

 

[pknopp]

you've argued that:
1. they have every right to change rules

They do.

2. i should not be able to discuss future actions based off their past ones.

No, you wanted me to condemn them for actions that have never happened.

so, at this point you have no point, you're just typing words on a screen and saying you don't matter.

and yet you call *me the "lazy" one.

LOL

 

[iceberg]

They do.

and i have every right to tell them how hypocritical this is, based off historic events up to and including 15+ years ago.

No, you wanted me to condemn them for actions that have never happened.

wrong. i don't really give a damn what you do. i was saying what *i* will feel based off what *i feel* they will do as soon as it suits their needs, giving explanation as to how i came to this mindset.

what you do is totally and completely up to you. i didn't WANT YOU to do anything at all.

LOL

tee hee

 

[task0778]

What Schumer is telling us is how much power the Far Left has in the Democratic Party. To appease the FL, Schumer is willing to take the chance of losing their Senate majority in November. Does he think 10 Repubs will support those voting rights bills, which are essentially designed to help democrats stay in office? I doubt it, so those bills will get filibustered, as they should IMHO.

Does he also think getting rid of the filibuster will actually happen? Maybe he thinks Manchin and Sinema will cave, but I don't see that happening. I understand the grandstanding to play to the FL and their political base, that will maybe help the Senate democrats in safe blue states, but will it hurt the other democrat Senators in red or purple states? Maybe he's thinking they'll get primaried in favor of a more progressive democrat and he'll still keep the Senate majority. But that doesn't seem likely, why put your most vulnerable incumbent democrats in danger?

Maybe he's just bloviating and will cancel those votes at the last minute. He'll look at the polls and what his caucus tells him and pull the plug. Wouldn't surprise me, I'd be more surprised if he went ahead and held those votes.

 

[Lesh]

they want it changed now because it blocks their goals.

Ther GOAL...is voting rights...something Republicans and apparently Manchin and Sinema are against

 

[iceberg]

Ther GOAL...is voting rights...something Republicans and apparently Manchin and Sinema are against

which rights do they not have today? OR, do you simply want to expand HOW they exercise a right that they do have?

how will this bill address the fact they don't have said rights OR how will changes you wish to have made restore rights you are implying they don't have?

give specific examples of past actions illustrating the lack of rights, showing why these changes must be made. to save democracy and all

be specific, not some generic minority family never to be named who simply can't vote under today's conditions.

 

[daveman]

He's forcing Manchin and Sinema to choose sides.

Good for him.

About time

That won't work out the way you want.

 

[Lesh]

That won't work out the way you want.

How do I want?

 

[Lesh]

which rights do they not have today? OR, do you simply want to expand HOW they exercise a right that they do have?

We're talking about voting rights. There should be NO infringement on them...don't you agree?

 

[Lesh]

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 (H.R. 4) is proposed legislation that would restore and strengthen parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, certain portions of which were struck down by two United States Supreme Court decisions of Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee.[1][2] Particularly, it would restore the Voting Rights Act's requirement that certain states pre-clear certain changes to their voting laws with the federal government.[3] It was re-introduced in the 117th Congress, and is named after late Georgia Representative and voting rights activist John Lewis.

On August 24, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill by a margin of 219–212.[4] On November 3, 2021, the bill failed to pass the Senate after failing to get the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture.[5]

 

[daveman]

How do I want?

I'm guessing whatever Democrats want.

 

[Lesh]

I'm guessing whatever Democrats want.

And what is that?

 

[daveman]

And what is that?

Eliminating the filibuster so Democrats can ram through their takeover of the election process.

 

[Lesh]

Eliminating the filibuster so Democrats can ram through their takeover of the election process.

That's not what the John Lewis bill dos my friend

 

[BackAgain]

What is Chucky smoking? Several Dems have been very evasive on their position because they know supporting this would be toxic with voters at home. The filibuster isn't going anywhere. He doesn't have the votes in his own party. He knows this.

So why is he forcing Dem Senators to expose how they would vote? Dumbest political move in quite a while, and Republicans are loving every second of it.

Schumer tells Democrats reluctant to nuke filibuster: 'We are all going to go on the record'

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer Tuesday turned up the heat on Democrats reluctant to nuke the chamber's 60-vote filibuster.

www.foxnews.com

They should all quote Upchucky Schmucky Schumer’s own prior arguments against eliminating the filibuster, giving the dates thereof, the circumstances back then and full attribution.