Sinema to deliver a Senate floor "double down" against Biden's filibuster attacks


it's amazing to me that (2) democrats are what is killing the entire entitlement dreams of the "progressives" out there. the most important thing to me is we have the "rule of the law / land" and everyone must adhere to it.

in 2006 schumer said ending the filibuster would end democracy.
while trump was in power, they used it 314 times.

it's well established and has been used by the left hundreds of times in recent years alone.

yet now that a few votes stop them from getting everything they and they alone want (and how "old" does that mindset sound, 3-6 years old?) they say the same tool that kept us from becoming a banana republic is now making us one.

we can't keep changing the rules to one sides advantage. doing so in recent administrations all around has put us where we are today. we now either change rules/laws or simply ignore them and dare someone to come after us.

that day is coming. all the entitled will not go away quietly. a child never does. but here we are with the open attacks on sinema and manchin for no other reason than they are in the way of the children getting all the candy they want.
so when trump attacks republicans because they don't support trump that's ok ??? another stupid republican who hasn't a clue ...
 
So not only do you not understand what "logic" means, you also do not understand what "backpedal" means.

Do you understand that you have presented no logic? Here son, I will show you how. Here is your collection of statements formatted as (piss poor) logic, since you cant articulate it yourself.

P: There is a viral research lab in Wuhan
P: All viruses that emerge from the region emerge from the lab

C: Therefore, covid-19 virus emerged from the Wuhan lab

See anything wrong with your (piss poor) logic, there? Anything at all?
None. That's what magaturds call sound, iron clad logic.
 
I have not lied.

Continue to live in partisan hack land. It suits you.

"The Senate voted to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court Friday — though they couldn’t have done it without triggering the “nuclear option” the day before, which allowed his nomination to advance with a simple majority.

That’s because, on Thursday, Democrats voted to filibuster Gorsuch’s nomination, and Republicans couldn’t come up with the necessary 60 votes to overcome that filibuster. If Senate rules were adhered to, Gorsuch’s nomination would have been blocked right there.

But Republicans refused to accept no for an answer, and responded simply by changing the rules so that 60 votes were no longer needed to advance a Supreme Court nomination."



If you were not lying on purpose then you've been terribly misinformed.
 
"The Senate voted to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court Friday — though they couldn’t have done it without triggering the “nuclear option” the day before, which allowed his nomination to advance with a simple majority.

That’s because, on Thursday, Democrats voted to filibuster Gorsuch’s nomination, and Republicans couldn’t come up with the necessary 60 votes to overcome that filibuster. If Senate rules were adhered to, Gorsuch’s nomination would have been blocked right there.

But Republicans refused to accept no for an answer, and responded simply by changing the rules so that 60 votes were no longer needed to advance a Supreme Court nomination."



If you were not lying on purpose then you've been terribly misinformed.
Yes, hack.

Ignore what I said over and over and over again.

Do it some more. Go on, fantasy land suits you.
 
Sinema needs to enact the nuclear option and switch parties to GOP.
Boy would that make some news.
if she's democrat, leave her alone and simply realize there ARE times both sides can agree or disagree on issues apart from their own party. i can certainly see voting strict party lines *at times* but to expect it every time simply isn't reasonable.

i just put her down as someone who holds the playfield the same for both sides and doesn't demand changes for "instant gratification" of one side over the other.

while a given side may be screaming FOUL because they are not getting what THEY want NOW, that isn't the purpose of the rules. the rules address a much broader sense of keeping the playfield fair for all.

using the filibuster as a weapon and deny others the same right - pure unadulterated bullshit. anyone doing this doesn't give a shit about fair rules for both sides. fundamentally that shouldn't change.
 
Yes, hack.

Ignore what I said over and over and over again.

Do it some more. Go on, fantasy land suits you.

:yapyapyapf:

"It was not the republicans that took away the filibuster for nominees, that was the democrats"

 
Last edited:
if she's democrat, leave her alone and simply realize there ARE times both sides can agree or disagree on issues apart from their own party. i can certainly see voting strict party lines *at times* but to expect it every time simply isn't reasonable.

i just put her down as someone who holds the playfield the same for both sides and doesn't demand changes for "instant gratification" of one side over the other.

while a given side may be screaming FOUL because they are not getting what THEY want NOW, that isn't the purpose of the rules. the rules address a much broader sense of keeping the playfield fair for all.

using the filibuster as a weapon and deny others the same right - pure unadulterated bullshit. anyone doing this doesn't give a shit about fair rules for both sides. fundamentally that shouldn't change.
I agree. She shouldn't be taken to task for her or any member of Congress for a position they take on any legislation.
 
Look at her positions on policy.

She is not a republican in any way. She is just a good democrat. We need more of her.
yea, agreeing on 1 issue isn't the definition of making someone a part of that party.

but it does mean there is still a "common ground" out there to be had. end of the day she will continue to fight for mostly "democratic" causes and that's great. but by her doing what she is doing now, i can trust her intent.

that means a ton to me when you're working with someone.
 
yea, agreeing on 1 issue isn't the definition of making someone a part of that party.

but it does mean there is still a "common ground" out there to be had. end of the day she will continue to fight for mostly "democratic" causes and that's great. but by her doing what she is doing now, i can trust her intent.

that means a ton to me when you're working with someone.
Disagreement is expected.

Burning the house down because you don't like the drapes and she does like them is not. So often in politics these days it is all about destroying everything to ensure you get your way, the minority be damned.
 
Disagreement is expected.

Burning the house down because you don't like the drapes and she does like them is not. So often in politics these days it is all about destroying everything to ensure you get your way, the minority be damned.
yep. the result of becoming so "binary".

like i always say - there's a million shades of gray between black and white; yet people see things as black or white.
 

Forum List

Back
Top