The Urgency of Addressing Iran’s Nuclear Threat

[FritsSikkink]

6 hours ago, janclaes47 said:

Wasn't there a shutdown under Obama as well?

No deal with the 2 parties then, so not comparable.

[Skeptic7]

19 hours ago, buick said:

lack of knowledge on the american system.

 

 

I'm an American and would argue many non-Americans know a helluva lot more about the American system than almost the entire Trump base. Bunch of young earth, anti-science, superstitious, knuckle dragging morons. 

[Slip]

 

Ex-Senate aide: Shutdown 'manufactured' by Republicans

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/369917-former-rnc-chair-gop-could-have-avoided-shutdown

Quote

The former Republican Party chief blamed President Trump for sinking a potential deal, saying Trump "wound up negotiating against himself by taking a potential agreement off the table."

 

[attrayant]

19 hours ago, janclaes47 said:

Good troll post, because you know very well who that comment was directed at.

 

Way to miss the point by several light years.  Trump has previously said that the president should get the blame for a government shutdown.  Listen to it from his own bloated, leathery orange lips:

 

 

 

And these Trump tweets are aging like a fine wine.

 

Edited January 21, 2018 by attrayant

[isaanbanhou]

The republicans stand for dismantling families, sexual predators, racism, billionaires and the military industrial complex.

 

[buick]

On 1/20/2018 at 2:07 AM, RPCVguy said:

The ability of the Democrats to waive the 60 vote threshold requires unanimous consent. This won't happen. Mitch McConnell won't let that happen because the behavior indicates the Republicans lack the 50 votes out of their 51 caucus members. Go to the 5 minute mark in this segment - worth viewing Lawrence O'Donnell at this time because he had been a senate staffer and knows the rules well.

the senate process can be confusing.  there is something called the 'nuclear option' where a 60 vote requirement is reduced to a simple majority vote, but i'm not sure if that can be used for this particular bill.  and as you say, they might not get the votes they need from their own party anyway.  they might have to make some changes in the spending bill to do that.

[buick]

On 1/20/2018 at 11:05 AM, FritsSikkink said:

The 2 parties had a deal, the president didn't want to sign. You don't need to be that smart to understand that it is the sole responsibility of the president that this has happened.

i'm not getting into the 'blame game' on this one (suffice to say all three entities involved are somewhat of a disgrace).  i only entered into the discussion to say that the republicans don't 'control' the senate in this particular vote as it requires 60 votes and they could only provide 51 yes votes.  i think some media outlets have been throwing this 'control' comment around without a disclaimer - the reps don't have control in this case.  it would be accurate if this was a simple majority vote.  the republicans would have 'control' but might not be able to pass it.  this was the case when they attempted to repeal and replace obamacare, they needed all the reps to vote but they couldn't get them (i think mccain and someone else voted against it)

 

 

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, buick said:

i'm not getting into the 'blame game' on this one (suffice to say all three entities involved are somewhat of a disgrace).  i only entered into the discussion to say that the republicans don't 'control' the senate in this particular vote as it requires 60 votes and they could only provide 51 yes votes.  i think some media outlets have been throwing this 'control' comment around without a disclaimer - the reps don't have control in this case.  it would be accurate if this was a simple majority vote.  the republicans would have 'control' but might not be able to pass it.  this was the case when they attempted to repeal and replace obamacare, they needed all the reps to vote but they couldn't get them (i think mccain and someone else voted against it)

 

 

You keep harping on about this, and are now asking for a disclaimer for the use of the word 'control'. 

Easy to understand word, and yes, republicans control both houses, no matter how you try to muddle.

[buick]

22 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

I'm an American and would argue many non-Americans know a helluva lot more about the American system than almost the entire Trump base. Bunch of young earth, anti-science, superstitious, knuckle dragging morons. 

good to have a fellow american in the discussion. 

[buick]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

You keep harping on about this, and are now asking for a disclaimer for the use of the word 'control'. 

Easy to understand word, and yes, republicans control both houses, no matter how you try to muddle.

here is an article i saw earlier.  it provides some explanation on the control thing.  it is a bit of, yes, they do, oh wait, they don't, oh wait, they might.  control means they can carry a vote with only their party.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/21/end-government-shutdown-trump-suggests-senate-use-nuclear-option/1051818001/

[stevenl]

59 minutes ago, buick said:

here is an article i saw earlier.  it provides some explanation on the control thing.  it is a bit of, yes, they do, oh wait, they don't, oh wait, they might.  control means they can carry a vote with only their party.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/21/end-government-shutdown-trump-suggests-senate-use-nuclear-option/1051818001/

Does it even mention the word 'control' in that article'?

 

It is an explanation on how this works, but your doubt of the word comes not into it, not one little bit. But I'm sure some of your fellow compatriots appreciate an explanation on how US Senate works. Most others discussing it here know this as general knowledge.

[boomerangutang]

If you're a 5-time draft dodging president, you don't say to a female military vet that the democrats are hurting the military.  First off it's not true, because it's Trump and the harmful-to-America Republicans are orchestrating the shut-down.  

 

Secondly, Trump is disparaging a Thai-American woman who lost both her legs as a military pilot, during combat.   Hell hath no fury like Congresswoman Duckworth scorned......

 

 

[Silurian]

21 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Does it even mention the word 'control' in that article'?

 

It is an explanation on how this works, but your doubt of the word comes not into it, not one little bit. But I'm sure some of your fellow compatriots appreciate an explanation on how US Senate works. Most others discussing it here know this as general knowledge.

 

This all comes down to a manner of semantics of the word "control".

 

Who currently controls the Senate? Republicans as they have the majority. Mitch McConnell (Republican) is responsible for controlling the agenda and scheduling debates and votes. Republicans hold all the committee chairs and thus control the Senate committees too. Democrats are definitely not in control of the Senate.

 

Now, do the Republican hold enough seats to pass the vote in this particular shutdown instance? No, they do not.

 

If one wants to replace the word "pass" with "control" that is up to the individual.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Silurian

[buick]

51 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Does it even mention the word 'control' in that article'?

 

here is the most applicable section (i did not 'bold' the text, that came from the article):

 

In the House, Republicans can pass legislation with only their own members because of the size of their majority — and they did so Thursday night to advance a spending measure to keep the government open.

However, a short-term spending bill fell short in the Senate, where Republicans have a narrow 51-49 majority so passing most legislation requires bipartisan support. Even if the whole party sticks together, they need at least nine Democrats to get on board.

“If ordinary rules prevailed, the majority rules in the Senate, the government would be open as of today," Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said, when asked on CNN Sunday about Trump's call to change the rules. "It also responds to this constant criticism we hear – ‘Oh, you Republicans control the White House and the House and the Senate, why can’t you just fund the government?' "

 

you'll see the word 'control' in the last sentence.  and this republican is saying they don't control the senate as they need democratic votes to pass this.  i'm neither a republican or a democrat.  i didn't vote for trump.  i like some of the ideas from the republican side and some from the democratic side. 

 

[buick]

40 minutes ago, Silurian said:

This all comes down to a manner of semantics of the word "control".

 

Who currently controls the Senate? Republicans as they have the majority. Mitch McConnell (Republican) is responsible for controlling the agenda and scheduling debates and votes. Republicans hold all the committee chairs and thus control the Senate committees too. Democrats are definitely not in control of the Senate.

 

Now, do the Republican hold enough seats to pass the vote in this particular shutdown instance? No, they do not.

 

If one wants to replace the word "pass" with "control" that is up to the individual.

 

this is a well written, accurate summary.

[wayned]

11 minutes ago, buick said:

 

this is a well written, accurate summary.

Another definition of "control" is that the majority leader, McConnell, determines if and when a bill will be introduced for debate and  vote.  In the case of the Graham/"Dickey" Durbin bill that they felt  would pass with at least 60 votes, McConnell wouldn't introduce the bill so that it could be debated and voted on.  So McConnell effectively "controlled" the Senate because "he thought that the President wouldn't sign the bill"!  If he had introduced it at least it would have been voted on and then passed to the House.  If they passed it, it would then go to the President for signature.  If, by some chance, 2/3 of congress, both the House and Senate, had passed it , he could not veto it and it would become law!

 

No fair immigration bill will ever make the President's desk for signature as long as McConnell thinks that he needs to get the President's approval before introducing the bill and Trump continues to listen to Steven Miller who is a flaming racists and John Kelly who should have just retired from the Corps and stayed home!

[boomerangutang]

3 hours ago, wayned said:

Another definition of "control" is that the majority leader, McConnell, determines if and when a bill will be introduced for debate and  vote.  In the case of the Graham/"Dickey" Durbin bill that they felt  would pass with at least 60 votes, McConnell wouldn't introduce the bill so that it could be debated and voted on.  So McConnell effectively "controlled" the Senate because "he thought that the President wouldn't sign the bill"!  If he had introduced it at least it would have been voted on and then passed to the House.  If they passed it, it would then go to the President for signature.  If, by some chance, 2/3 of congress, both the House and Senate, had passed it , he could not veto it and it would become law!

No fair immigration bill will ever make the President's desk for signature as long as McConnell thinks that he needs to get the President's approval before introducing the bill and Trump continues to listen to Steven Miller who is a flaming racists and John Kelly who should have just retired from the Corps and stayed home!

Post above, perfectly on the mark.  Ryan and McConnell are nearly as anti-American as Trump.  They're cowardly, in not putting forth a bill that they know will pass with bipartisan support.  ....because they're not sure whether the prez will sign it EVEN THO THE PREZ SAID HE WOULD SIGN ANYTHING PUT IN FRONT OF HIM ! 

 

Republicans, drain yourselves.  You are the swamp.

[mikebike]

4 hours ago, buick said:

 

here is the most applicable section (i did not 'bold' the text, that came from the article):

 

In the House, Republicans can pass legislation with only their own members because of the size of their majority — and they did so Thursday night to advance a spending measure to keep the government open.

However, a short-term spending bill fell short in the Senate, where Republicans have a narrow 51-49 majority so passing most legislation requires bipartisan support. Even if the whole party sticks together, they need at least nine Democrats to get on board.

“If ordinary rules prevailed, the majority rules in the Senate, the government would be open as of today," Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said, when asked on CNN Sunday about Trump's call to change the rules. "It also responds to this constant criticism we hear – ‘Oh, you Republicans control the White House and the House and the Senate, why can’t you just fund the government?' "

 

you'll see the word 'control' in the last sentence.  and this republican is saying they don't control the senate as they need democratic votes to pass this.  i'm neither a republican or a democrat.  i didn't vote for trump.  i like some of the ideas from the republican side and some from the democratic side. 

 

You conveniently left out the part of when a 60 vote majority is required. It is when the majority (those in "control") of the house decide they want to quell debate. Any bill can pass with a simple majority IF the party in "control" is willing to listen to the other side and come to a bipartisan conclusion.

 

From quora.com:

In both houses of Congress, you still need a majority (50%+1) to pass a bill.  In the House of Representatives, that's the only consideration.

In the Senate, the rules are a bit more complex.  If the bill makes it to a vote, it needs only 51 votes.  But you need to debate before it gets to a vote.  The Senate fancies itself the "world's greatest deliberative body", and they'll deliberate as long as somebody wants to.  You can force them to stop deliberating by a cloture vote, and that takes 60 votes.  

[buick]

On 1/22/2018 at 12:34 AM, mikebike said:

You conveniently left out the part of when a 60 vote majority is required.

you might have missed it but i attached a link to an article to further the discussion with a member of the forum.  that person couldn't find the text i was referring to.  when i was made aware of this, i did a cut and paste of the most relevant part of the article.  so i wasn't leaving anything out.  the funny part is i specifically attached the full article (instead of a selective cut and paste) so i wasn't guilty of what you accuse me of !!

 

as i said from the outset, things can be complicated when it comes to senate votes.  the discussion here got bogged down a bit on 'semantics' as outlined by a member.  i'm going to use the word 'pass' instead of 'control' from now on to avoid that confusion.  i'm sure we'll have another chance to discuss it as some more votes come along.

[RPCVguy]

SOMETIMES it requires "Unanimous Consent" and in the shutdown 3 painful options could have been taken immediately off the table, but EACH time it was the GOP Leader Mitch McConnell who stepped in immediately to force those painful options to remain on the table. The night before, it was also Mitch who stopped a vote he knew would have passed.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-with-i-object-mcconnell-owns-shutdown-s-worst-harms-1143240771644

[buick]

i don't mean to reignite a 'war' here but i was having a discussion with a friend the other day about when obama and the democrats had 'control' of congress.  we couldn't remember how long it was.  i did a google and found this article (i have done a cut/paste of the applicable phrase related to our discussion last month):

 

“Total control”, then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.

 

https://www.ohio.com/akron/pages/when-obama-had-total-control-of-congress

 

as you may recall, we were struggling a bit with 'control' and this uses 'total control' which seems appropriate.  you don't have total control of congress unless one party has 60 senators (plus enough in the house to control the vote there also).  so in the vote we discussed here, the republicans didn't have 'total control'.

[ilostmypassword]

18 minutes ago, buick said:

i don't mean to reignite a 'war' here but i was having a discussion with a friend the other day about when obama and the democrats had 'control' of congress.  we couldn't remember how long it was.  i did a google and found this article (i have done a cut/paste of the applicable phrase related to our discussion last month):

 

“Total control”, then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.

 

https://www.ohio.com/akron/pages/when-obama-had-total-control-of-congress

 

as you may recall, we were struggling a bit with 'control' and this uses 'total control' which seems appropriate.  you don't have total control of congress unless one party has 60 senators (plus enough in the house to control the vote there also).  so in the vote we discussed here, the republicans didn't have 'total control'.

using a process called reconciliation the Republicans did have enough control to get their tax bill passed. For that they needed only a simple majority. It's also enough to confirm nominees to the judiciary.

Under Obama the Democrats briefly had a filibuster proof 60 votes during part of the first 2 years of Obama's tenure until Ted Kennedy died.

Edited February 27, 2018 by ilostmypassword