- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Schumer's Big Bluff
Posted on 3/29/17 at 9:33 am
Posted on 3/29/17 at 9:33 am
I think Chuck Schumer is the worst kind of demoPartisan political hack. But that's ok, I'm a Republican. I'm sure he'd think I am the same, if he knew me.
So, speaking hack to hack, I'm going to say that Chuckie has to know he has but one last card to play, and that card is the "bluff" card.
By that, I think his promise to lead a filibuster on Gorsuch is really designed to bluff Mitch McConnell, the Senate GOP Majority Leader - who I'd bet Schumer reads as a "turtle in his shell" coward who will back down from invoking the nuclear option because of the great firestorm of political stink controversy the MSM will generate if he uses it (successfully or not).
And secondary to bluffing McConnell, I'm thinking Schumer is bluffing the "up-East RINOs" into not voting with a GOP majority if indeed McConnell does surprise him and goes nuclear anyway.
Oops! Almost forgot the link.
So, speaking hack to hack, I'm going to say that Chuckie has to know he has but one last card to play, and that card is the "bluff" card.
By that, I think his promise to lead a filibuster on Gorsuch is really designed to bluff Mitch McConnell, the Senate GOP Majority Leader - who I'd bet Schumer reads as a "turtle in his shell" coward who will back down from invoking the nuclear option because of the great firestorm of political stink controversy the MSM will generate if he uses it (successfully or not).
And secondary to bluffing McConnell, I'm thinking Schumer is bluffing the "up-East RINOs" into not voting with a GOP majority if indeed McConnell does surprise him and goes nuclear anyway.
Oops! Almost forgot the link.
This post was edited on 3/29/17 at 9:35 am
7
Posted on 3/29/17 at 9:35 am to JawjaTigah
If they do this then it's all out political war.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 9:42 am to JawjaTigah
For all you parliamentarians......
Looks like a game of chicken in the Senate. Schumer threatening filibuster, McConnell threatening the "nuclear option".
Both sides actually want the other to play their hand first.
Should the Democrats filibuster...and I realize its a procedural filibuster...their not gonna stand there and talk...how is that interrupted by the Republicans to move to the simple majority vote. The point of the filibuster is to hold up the process. How do you but in and say..OK enough of that, we're changing the rules.
Looks like a game of chicken in the Senate. Schumer threatening filibuster, McConnell threatening the "nuclear option".
Both sides actually want the other to play their hand first.
Should the Democrats filibuster...and I realize its a procedural filibuster...their not gonna stand there and talk...how is that interrupted by the Republicans to move to the simple majority vote. The point of the filibuster is to hold up the process. How do you but in and say..OK enough of that, we're changing the rules.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 9:45 am to Whens lunch
quote:
How do you but in and say..OK enough of that, we're changing the rules.
Because they can
Was good enough for Reid - good enough for McConnell.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 9:45 am to Whens lunch
Dems had nuclear in place so they could start killing conservative judges and ramming replacements through.
It better get abused against them without remorse.
It better get abused against them without remorse.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 9:47 am to JawjaTigah
Nuclear card beats bluff card EVERYfrickINGTIME and everyone knows it.
Chuck's a punk and wants libs to think he's the 2nd coming of Obama.
Chuck's a punk and wants libs to think he's the 2nd coming of Obama.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 9:49 am to Whens lunch
Right now, though, Schumer can't keep his side in line. Manchin and Leahy are on record that they will not filibuster Gorsuch (though Leahy will not vote for him). I'm not aware of any Republicans who will filibuster Gorsuch.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 9:56 am to Quidam65
quote:Procedurally, if a couple 2-3 RINOs don't vote for a "rules change" (nuclear option - which would allow a simple majority to then confirm Justice Gorsuch), they have in essence, voted with the filibuster by permitting it to go on. And on. And on....
'm not aware of any Republicans who will filibuster Gorsuch.
Never underestimate the timidity to really govern and hide-bound Senate traditionalism of RINOs.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 10:12 am to Whens lunch
Isn't there a much, much, much, more conservative constitutionalist (Cruz for example) that McConnell can threaten to use the nuclear option on if Dems filibuster Gorsuch?
This post was edited on 3/29/17 at 10:14 am
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:23 am to JawjaTigah
quote:
I think Chuck Schumer is the worst kind of demoPartisan political hack. But that's ok, I'm a Republican. I'm sure he'd think I am the same, if he knew me.
I think it's just his way of appeasing his far-left whackjob New York base.
Gorsuch will go through without the need for the nuclear option.
He also knows he has the mainstream media on his side so that when he looks to filibuster ANYONE who Trump nominates to replace Kennedy of Scumbag Ruthie, he can just pretend like he never threatened to filibuster Gorsuch. The media will not mention anything about his filibuster threat when Chuckie goes before the cameras and states that the Democrats are only filibustering whoever Trump picks because they are some sort of alt-right extremist (NO MATTER WHO THE PICK IS). He will use the non-filibuster of Gorsuch to "prove" that the Dims are "reasonable." And, the mainstream media will repeat it verbatim and support that lie 100%.
If you have ANY DOUBT, just look at the MSMs current coverage of Garland. They go on and on about what a scumbag move it was for the Republicans to not even consider Garland. They even talk about it being "unprecedented." And, yet, not one of those lying c*cksuckers (yes, this includes the carpet munching little boy Madcow) ever mentions the "Joe Biden Rule" (or his long speech on the Senate floor when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee) nor Odumbf*ck's attempted filibuster of ANYONE Bush nominated.
This post was edited on 3/29/17 at 11:31 am
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:55 am to Quidam65
I understand the precedent...I'm curious about the process.
I want Schumer to go ahead with the filibuster, to show the Democrats once again to be petty obstructionists. Then the Republicans to step up and say eff this....we're calling vote to change the rules of the Senate...which of course negates the filibuster.
Once you go to a filibuster, I don't know how it's interrupted.
If McConnell goes straight to the nuclear option to prevent the filibuster, then they give the Democrats a taking point (even if there is Biden's precedent).
I want Schumer to go ahead with the filibuster, to show the Democrats once again to be petty obstructionists. Then the Republicans to step up and say eff this....we're calling vote to change the rules of the Senate...which of course negates the filibuster.
Once you go to a filibuster, I don't know how it's interrupted.
If McConnell goes straight to the nuclear option to prevent the filibuster, then they give the Democrats a taking point (even if there is Biden's precedent).
This post was edited on 3/29/17 at 11:56 am
Posted on 3/29/17 at 1:12 pm to Whens lunch
No matter what, the MSM will paint the Senate GOP with shite and tar and stink. So as this is a virtual "given" if I was in McConnell's shoes, I'd go for the win and not worry about the Leftista partisan fallout. If he needs extra cajones, maybe Cruz and Rand Paul can lend a pair.
This post was edited on 3/29/17 at 1:16 pm
Posted on 3/29/17 at 1:13 pm to roadGator
quote:
If they do this then it's all out political war.
Yeah, Merrick Garland was just polite politics.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 1:59 pm to Whens lunch
quote:
Once you go to a filibuster, I don't know how it's interrupted.
So, the rules say that as long as even one senator wants debate to continue, debate must continue. But, even when some other senator has the floor, another senator can make a motion for cloture. But, the motion for cloture requires 60 votes, and failing that, debate continues.
However, at any point in time, a senator can call a "point of order". You can think of this like a lawyer "objecting" in courtroom. It's usually used to remind the senate about some rule that's not being followed. And it's up to the discretion of president of the senate (the vice president) or, if the president of the senate is not present, then the president pro tempore of the senate, to rule on the point of order.
If the ruling is in favor of the point of order, then some other senator can appeal the ruling. But the appeal is not debatable, it goes straight to a vote. And a vote in the senate, other than a vote on a motion for cloture, only requires a simple majority.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 2:02 pm to JawjaTigah
Schumer is like any other dem. He wants it both ways. He will threaten the filibuster to rile up the base, and ultimately not do it so he can claim moral high ground when the real SC fight starts after RBG goes tits up.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 2:07 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:
Isn't there a much, much, much, more conservative constitutionalist (Cruz for example) that McConnell can threaten to use the nuclear option on if Dems filibuster Gorsuch?
That's exactly the stick I would use if I were Trump.
Also, the great deal maker, why doesn't he do the obvious and tell Schumber "look, you give me Gorsuch to replace Scalia, and I'll nominate Garland to replace RBG when she finally croaks over (or Keenedy if he retires first) and insist that the GOP Senators vote for him?
Seriously, isn't that why Trump was sent to DC, to forge compromises.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 6:18 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Thanks, Skiptumahloo.
This post was edited on 3/29/17 at 6:19 pm
Posted on 3/29/17 at 6:21 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Yeah, Merrick Garland was just polite politics.
He was in response to some of the same democrats currently in the Senate threatening George Bush in 2006 not to appoint anyone because he was so close to the end of his term.
You dumbshits keep assuming nobody records a history of anything.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:03 pm to JawjaTigah
quote:
By that, I think his promise to lead a filibuster on Gorsuch is really designed to bluff Mitch McConnell, the Senate GOP Majority Leader - who I'd bet Schumer reads as a "turtle in his shell" coward who will back down from invoking the nuclear option because of the great firestorm of political stink controversy the MSM will generate if he uses it (successfully or not).
This makes zero sense. If the threat of the filibuster is a bluff, then McConnell won't have to use the nuclear option anyway.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:11 pm to skiptumahloo
This is democrats wanting a deal to forgo a filibuster on Gorsuch for a promise from Republicans to not to use the nuclear option on the next SCOTUS candidate.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News