Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Heck after Boehner I cant recall who is next in line of the presidency.
President protempore of the senate - Pat Leahy
Secretary of State - John Kerry
Secretary of the Treasury - Jacob Lew
Secretary of Defense - Chuck Hagel
Attorney General - Eric Holder
Biden is an honorable man that is not a hypocrite. I would expect him to make the same arguments he did in 2001 and offer the GOP 50-50 control of the Senate.
And here I thought nobody could be this naive. And then....
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
I am not asking that the constitution get over turned, just that the Democrats live up to their ideals that they argued for recently. What is the worst that could happen? Holder can't cover up Fast and Furious anymore?
...you type this and confirm it.
Not that I am expecting you to be an Ann Coulter fan anytime soon, but she's made her career in part on chronicling the numerous times Republicans give ground to Democrats, thinking they'll get the favor returned someday, and the Democrats always renege. Every single time. They change the narrative, redefine what they said originally, or just blow it off like it never happened.
Yes, they got the Republicans to "share" power back during the last 50-50. Yes, they argued for "principled, fair" procedures in the Senate...and if they go 50-50, look for them to tell you how back when the Republicans shared it was different and Obama needs Biden's 51st vote and strong leadership from his party to "fix" America blah blah, or they'll tell you how the GOP never really shared power back then and now they don't have to, etc etc.
The Democrat party is more intellectually honest about their pure politicking than Republicans, but they are also by far the worse scumbags in their politics. If the Republicans do not win the Senate outright, as in 51-49, they will not "hold" the Senate to any degree whatsoever, and if they do take the Senate 51-49, look for the Democrats to reinstate the filibuster on everything and anything, requiring 60 votes again instead of a simple majority, because when Reid argued for it before, that was different, and now 60 is better for everyone because well, he said so.
In the 107th Congress, there was a 50-50 tie between the 2 parties, with Cheney being the tie breaker. The Democrats said this was unfair and demanded even control. The Republicans agreed to the terms, until Jefford switched from a Republican to an Independent that caucused with the Democrats giving the Democrats the slight edge.
If there is a 50-50 tie in the US Senate after the 2014 election, should we follow the Democrat Party principle of 2001 and have both parties share control of the US Senate equally, instead of having the Democrats retain full control with Biden breaking the ties for leadership decisions?
I say yes, it may even bring out some bipartisanship - I like the Democrat Party plan of 2001 that the Republicans agreed to, instead of having Cheney break the ties for all leadership votes.
Cheney did break the ties on votes. It does not matter who occupies the seats, because the votes need to have a majority either way.
As the saying goes reap what you sow. That was dumbest thing they could have ever done especially considering they knew the uncertainties of this election cycle.
Like in the 108th Congress when Lott threatened the nuclear option over the 10 filibusters of judicial nominees? Oh wait, that's right, they never actually invoked the nuclear option...instead deciding to make a deal with the minority leader Reid, who would later (of course) renege on not invoking it himself.
In the 107th Congress, there was a 50-50 tie between the 2 parties, with Cheney being the tie breaker. The Democrats said this was unfair and demanded even control. The Republicans agreed to the terms, until Jefford switched from a Republican to an Independent that caucused with the Democrats giving the Democrats the slight edge.
If there is a 50-50 tie in the US Senate after the 2014 election, should we follow the Democrat Party principle of 2001 and have both parties share control of the US Senate equally, instead of having the Democrats retain full control with Biden breaking the ties for leadership decisions?
I say yes, it may even bring out some bipartisanship - I like the Democrat Party plan of 2001 that the Republicans agreed to, instead of having Cheney break the ties for all leadership votes.
The VP breaks ties.
Once Jeffords left the GOP, it was no longer a tie.
As I pointed out. There was a 50-50 tie recently with Cheney as the tie breaker. The Democrats demanded that they get some control of the Senate leadership and the Republicans gave in until Jeffords switched sides.
Since the Democrats set this precedent, should they now return the favor to the Republicans?
I understand what you are saying here moon - but we all know that Harry Reid and the Dems will NEVER go along with that. They "demand" all sorts of things when they don't hold the majority and then do whatever they please when they do hold the majority. Reid just unilaterally got rid of the filibuster - he will never agree to what he used to "demand".
Republicans did show a lot of bi-partisanship in the 107th Congress, but that same bi-partisanship is never returned to them. At some point, the GOP will learn the lesson - they should have never agreed to the Democrat's "demands" in 2001 and I won't expect they will do so in the future.
I understand what you are saying here moon - but we all know that Harry Reid and the Dems will NEVER go along with that. They "demand" all sorts of things when they don't hold the majority and then do whatever they please when they do hold the majority. Reid just unilaterally got rid of the filibuster - he will never agree to what he used to "demand".
Republicans did show a lot of bi-partisanship in the 107th Congress, but that same bi-partisanship is never returned to them. At some point, the GOP will learn the lesson - they should have never agreed to the Democrat's "demands" in 2001 and I won't expect they will do so in the future.
Reid didn't "get rid" of the fillibuster. The GOP can still filibuster on most bills. The filibuster was ended on certain Judicial and Presidential appointees after the GOP broke all sorts of records on the amount of filibusters.
Reid didn't "get rid" of the fillibuster. The GOP can still filibuster on most bills. The filibuster was ended on certain Judicial and Presidential appointees after the GOP broke all sorts of records on the amount of filibusters.
What you really mean is .... "Reid didn't get rid of the filibuster - YET". Harry Reid does exactly what he wants to do, exactly when he wants to do it. IF he should decide that he wants to "get rid" of the filibuster on all votes, then that is what he will do. On the rare occasion that Reid brings any legislation to the Senate - it's pre-canned with rarely an opportunity for either debate or amendment.
It will be interesting to see what lengths he will do to when it gets closer to the Mid Terms.
He is already calling citizens "terrorists" when they try to thwart him. Reid has NO limits in his own mind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
