[Hoot Gibson]

So yes or no, can the Senate defeat filibuster or not. And I loathe McConnell but I vote for him because he keeps running against Democrats.

There is no constitutional right to filibuster. It is a Senate creation and the Senate is free to make its own rules, within the confines of the Constitution.

Also, there is a huge difference in quietly working behind the scenes in the Senate to facilitate illegal immigration and casting a vote in public and on the record in favor of open borders. I am not sure that there is a single Republican who would vote against funding a border wall in an up or down vote on a clean bill.

[jetpilot]

You didn't answer my question so I will leave it at let them filibuster. Could have let them stay on Senate floor forever. They would have quickly caved after bloviating for TV for a couple hours each.

[TheRealThing]

The answer was a simple one and it is a fair one. I explained why I believe that Trump missed his best opportunity to secure funding for the wall. You responded with nothing but insults.

I missed JP's explanation of why he believed that Trump would keep his campaign promise about building a wall. Maybe in skimmimg through one of your painfully long posts, I overlooked your answer as well. If so, please point me toward your answer. You must have had some idea of how Trump would overcome the Senate cloture vote hurdle if you think facing off with
McConell would have been a big mistake.

No you don't get to carve out a late breaking, weak and ill-conceived safe haven, which again was supposedly to ask how I expected Trump to secure wall funding, while playing the intellectual and barricade yourself up behind that smoke screen. Of course, I could never understand the Senate filibuster rule like you do, but if you or anyone else would care to know how I feel about it you might go to the thread I started on the subject and check it out. You might even notice the mention of Mitch McConnell there.

You've been chased all over the place during the course of this thread. I leave it up to others to decide which of us best developed topic, and stayed on topic. Like your Reagan quote, the message to which you were perfectly fine with holding others, but at the same time unwilling to comply to that standard yourself once called on it.

You started off saying Trump, at the beginning of his tenure, had a strong hand and should have forced Ryan and McConnell to capitulate. Not that he missed his best opportunity as you later characterized. But at least you've joined the rest of us in our belief that the President never had the opportunity to dictate terms. So where are we these days, do you want Trump to stomp these guys or work with them? Speaking of which, I believe Ryan and McConnell decoyed the President in taking up ObamaCare and Tax Reform in order to get us to the very juncture in time and circumstance in which we find ourselves. Why? Because as I and others on here continue to point out, with the power of trillions of dollars floating in the background, Dems and RINO's were never going quietly into that dark night. Further, with surety of the number of all those open Republican seats in their pocket, there is reason to suspect the forthrightness of Ryan's not so subtle point shaving performance as Speaker of the House. Lou Dobbs and Mark Levin and many others have said that Trump's Republican opponents saw the opportunity as acceptable collateral damage to the party. Hence, no wall and they hoped, no Trump.

But the underpinning of the opposition's premise in all of this is full of termites. No president should have to goad or cajole the US Congress to fulfill their constitutional prime mandate, which is to provide for the common defense. With the backing of most taxpayers, America spends something north of 500 billion dollars on defense annually. The very idea that those sworn to protect the interests and people of this land, would willfully plot a dereliction and by way of miserably weak cover choose to say that 5.7 billion more for a wall is untenable; A number which by way of practicality is a mere matter of appropriation, especially in the face of those carrying drugs and the now endless caravan and you name it, lined up to cross the border hundreds abreast, is the most existentially ridiculous and shameful blather in the history of governance. The USA is the first and only superpower to fall under threat of annihilation by liberalism, as far as I know. :dudecomeon:

[jetpilot]

im Mak
‏
Verified account

@timkmak
Follow Follow @timkmak
More
68 votes and counting on Senate effort, led by Sen. Mitch McConnell, to oppose withdrawing US troops from Syria/Afghanistan.

It's a rebuke of Trump's withdrawal plans and his declarations that ISIS has been defeated.

12:38 PM - 31 Jan 2019


Mollie
‏
Verified account

@MZHemingway
Follow Follow @MZHemingway
More Mollie Retweeted Tim Mak
If you wonder how the establishment is able to maintain endless war -- despite public opinion in favor of a different foreign policy -- Mitch McConnell is giving a master class in it right now. We've been in Afghanistan since 2001. It is 2019.

[jetpilot]

Hoot TDS analysis: Trump lied when he said he was getting troops out of Syria and Afghanistan.

[Hoot Gibson]

You didn't answer my question so I will leave it at let them filibuster. Could have let them stay on Senate floor forever. They would have quickly caved after bloviating for TV for a couple hours each.

You said that you know all about filibusters and then ask me to explain the process to you? :biglmao:

60 senators can stop a filibuster and force a vote on the floor of the Senate. The vote to limit debate to the subject at hand and to limit the time of debate is called a cloture vote.

I don't claim to be an expert on Senate rules, but if Trump had no plan to get around the cloture rule when he promised to build a border wall, then his promise was nonsense. Now, he has cornered himself and if he attempts to use funds that were not approved for a border wall, then he will be taking a huge gamble with the Republican majority in the Senate and the second term that he seeks.

To me, this country faces no greater threat than illegal immigration. While I did not believe that Trump would get the 60 votes necessary for the Senate to allow a floor vote on funding the wall, I expected him to put forth an effort while his party controlled Congress.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot TDS analysis: Trump lied when he said he was getting troops out of Syria and Afghanistan.

You and your sidekick, TRT, should worry about your own opinions and stop attributing opinions to me that I don't hold.

I am all for withdrawing from Afghanistan, although I don't believe in announcing our plans in public.

I strongly disagree with Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria, but he is our president and foreign policy is his job, not the responsibility of the U.S. Senate. This is just another example of what a cancer McConnell is within the body of the Republican Party.

[Hoot Gibson]

No you don't get to carve out a late breaking, weak and ill-conceived safe haven, which again was supposedly to ask how I expected Trump to secure wall funding, while playing the intellectual and barricade yourself up behind that smoke screen. Of course, I could never understand the Senate filibuster rule like you do, but if you or anyone else would care to know how I feel about it you might go to the thread I started on the subject and check it out. You might even notice the mention of Mitch McConnell there.

You've been chased all over the place during the course of this thread. I leave it up to others to decide which of us best developed topic, and stayed on topic. Like your Reagan quote, the message to which you were perfectly fine with holding others, but at the same time unwilling to comply to that standard yourself once called on it.

You started off saying Trump, at the beginning of his tenure, had a strong hand and should have forced Ryan and McConnell to capitulate. Not that he missed his best opportunity as you later characterized. But at least you've joined the rest of us in our belief that the President never had the opportunity to dictate terms. So where are we these days, do you want Trump to stomp these guys or work with them? Speaking of which, I believe Ryan and McConnell decoyed the President in taking up ObamaCare and Tax Reform in order to get us to the very juncture in time and circumstance in which we find ourselves. Why? Because as I and others on here continue to point out, with the power of trillions of dollars floating in the background, Dems and RINO's were never going quietly into that dark night. Further, with surety of the number of all those open Republican seats in their pocket, there is reason to suspect the forthrightness of Ryan's not so subtle point shaving performance as Speaker of the House. Lou Dobbs and Mark Levin and many others have said that Trump's Republican opponents saw the opportunity as acceptable collateral damage to the party. Hence, no wall and they hoped, no Trump.

But the underpinning of the opposition's premise in all of this is full of termites. No president should have to goad or cajole the US Congress to fulfill their constitutional prime mandate, which is to provide for the common defense. With the backing of most taxpayers, America spends something north of 500 billion dollars on defense annually. The very idea that those sworn to protect the interests and people of this land, would willfully plot a dereliction and by way of miserably weak cover choose to say that 5.7 billion more for a wall is untenable; A number which by way of practicality is a mere matter of appropriation, especially in the face of those carrying drugs and the now endless caravan and you name it, lined up to cross the border hundreds abreast, is the most existentially ridiculous and shameful blather in the history of governance. The USA is the first and only superpower to fall under threat of annihilation by liberalism, as far as I know. :dudecomeon:

It was a simple question, TRT. Obviously, it was too difficult for you to answer.

I was not the one who touted how tough Trump would be on illegal immigration and how he would "drain the swamp." I knew better but I still voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils. If you believed half of what Trump promised, then you should be more disappointed in his performance than I ever could be. I am generally satisfied with the job that he is doing but my expectations were not unreasonably high.

[TheRealThing]

You and your sidekick, TRT, should worry about your own opinions and stop attributing opinions to me that I don't hold.

I am all for withdrawing from Afghanistan, although I don't believe in announcing our plans in public.

I strongly disagree with Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria, but he is our president and foreign policy is his job, not the responsibility of the U.S. Senate. This is just another example of what a cancer McConnell is within the body of the Republican Party.

Zowie!! Other than your delusions about me and Jet, this post is right on. I wasn't happy with that decision either. In fact I have stated in the past that for us to give up bases strategically beneficial to this land is wrong. Not only are the dollars spent, but our dependable presence in those places instills trust, and therefore the flow of intel, plus our presence in these places gives much needed training opportunities for our troops. And that is the very short list.

Further, one of Trump's campaign no-no's was announcing military plans and decisions to our enemies. I didn't like that one bit either.

McConnell evidently forgot the day Dems ran over both houses to ram thru ObamaCare. The 60 rule did absolutely nada in that case, and once Dems are in control again we'll see much more of the same.

[TheRealThing]

It was a simple question, TRT. Obviously, it was too difficult for you to answer.

[SIZE="4"]
I was not the one who touted how tough Trump would be on illegal immigration and how he would "drain the swamp."[/SIZE] I knew better but I still voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils. If you believed half of what Trump promised, then you should be more disappointed in his performance than I ever could be. I am generally satisfied with the job that he is doing but my expectations were not unreasonably high.

Oh Hoot, you're just so intelligent. It was a self serving dodge, and I threw a wrench at it.

Second highlight--- Prove it.

[jetpilot]

You said that you know all about filibusters and then ask me to explain the process to you? :biglmao:

60 senators can stop a filibuster and force a vote on the floor of the Senate. The vote to limit debate to the subject at hand and to limit the time of debate is called a cloture vote.

I don't claim to be an expert on Senate rules, but if Trump had no plan to get around the cloture rule when he promised to build a border wall, then his promise was nonsense. Now, he has cornered himself and if he attempts to use funds that were not approved for a border wall, then he will be taking a huge gamble with the Republican majority in the Senate and the second term that he seeks.

To me, this country faces no greater threat than illegal immigration. While I did not believe that Trump would get the 60 votes necessary for the Senate to allow a floor vote on funding the wall, I expected him to put forth an effort while his party controlled Congress.

You are going off the rails. I asked you if you thought the filibuster could be defeated in the Senate. I don't need no stinkin' cloture. Let Dems filibuster the wall 'til the cows come home. Let them explain with TV cameras on them why they want drug cartels, gang members, unlimited kinds of other criminals, and everyone else to be able to walk across our borders. They will give up after a short time and the the vote will be taken. I don't know how I can make the question any more clear. It's not 60 votes to vote, it's 60 votes to end debate. Let them "debate" for months. They will give up.

[Hoot Gibson]

Oh Hoot, you're just so intelligent. It was a self serving dodge, and I threw a wrench at it.

Second highlight--- Prove it.

:biglmao: At least you managed to post a short dodge. That must have been difficult for you.

[TheRealThing]

:biglmao: At least you managed to post a short dodge. That must have been difficult for you.

:thatsfunn Yeah, about as difficult as your climbing down off of that high horse.


Now you want to admit to Jet, that all that was asked was can the senate defeat a filibuster yes or no, or not?

[jetpilot]

From Bill Bennett no less:

Bill Bennett Retweeted

Donald J. Trump
‏
Verified account

@realDonaldTrump
Jan 20
More
“No President in modern times has kept more promises than Donald Trump!” Thank you Bill Bennett @SteveHiltonx

[Hoot Gibson]

You are going off the rails. I asked you if you thought the filibuster could be defeated in the Senate. I don't need no stinkin' cloture. Let Dems filibuster the wall 'til the cows come home. Let them explain with TV cameras on them why they want drug cartels, gang members, unlimited kinds of other criminals, and everyone else to be able to walk across our borders. They will give up after a short time and the the vote will be taken. I don't know how I can make the question any more clear. It's not 60 votes to vote, it's 60 votes to end debate. Let them "debate" for months. They will give up.

Either way, Trump failed to use the bully pulpit to pressure McConnell into doing his job. Harry Reid changed the cloture rules when he was Senate Majority Leader through a simple majority vote so that a simple majority vote is enough to bring most presidential appointees to the Senate floor for a vote without a three-fifth's majority vote.

Cloture votes do more than cut off debate, they ensure that there will be a simple majority vote on an issue and force Senators to debate the bill that has been brought forward for a vote.

All I am saying is that Trump should have taken action on the biggest threat facing this country when he was in the strongest negotiating position that he will ever have as president. Using a national emergency to divert defense funding to build a wall would be justified, but it should have been a last resort. If Trump follows through on that threat, then a future Democrat president who cannot get funding for some socialist pet project will have another avenue to bypass the legislative process.

[Hoot Gibson]

:thatsfunn Yeah, about as difficult as your climbing down off of that high horse.


Now you want to admit to Jet, that all that was asked was can the senate defeat a filibuster yes or no, or not?

You are in no position to demand an answer to any question. You never fail to resort to personal attacks when your poor debating skills get you in over your head. Nobody can answer the question of why you believed that Trump would build a border wall and get Mexico to pay for it but you - and you cannot admit that you blindly support Trump on nothing but faith. Hero worship is the path to totalitarianism.

[Hoot Gibson]

From Bill Bennett no less:

Bill Bennett Retweeted

Donald J. Trump
‏
Verified account

@realDonaldTrump
Jan 20
More
“No President in modern times has kept more promises than Donald Trump!” Thank you Bill Bennett @SteveHiltonx

Bill Bennett is entitled to his opinion and Donald Trump has kept many of his promises - but he has not kept the promise that he made the cornerstone of his presidential campaign. That promise, if it remains unkept, is the one that threatens to hand the Whitehouse over to Democrats in two years.

[jetpilot]

Bill Bennett is entitled to his opinion and Donald Trump has kept many of his promises - but he has not kept the promise that he made the cornerstone of his presidential campaign. That promise, if it remains unkept, is the one that threatens to hand the Whitehouse over to Democrats in two years.

I agree with this. It's why desperate Dems are taking a defenseless position against the interest of the USA, it's the only way they can defeat Trump in 2020. Trump knows this and he will get it done.

[jetpilot]

Either way, Trump failed to use the bully pulpit to pressure McConnell into doing his job. Harry Reid changed the cloture rules when he was Senate Majority Leader through a simple majority vote so that a simple majority vote is enough to bring most presidential appointees to the Senate floor for a vote without a three-fifth's majority vote.

Cloture votes do more than cut off debate, they ensure that there will be a simple majority vote on an issue and force Senators to debate the bill that has been brought forward for a vote.

All I am saying is that Trump should have taken action on the biggest threat facing this country when he was in the strongest negotiating position that he will ever have as president. Using a national emergency to divert defense funding to build a wall would be justified, but it should have been a last resort. If Trump follows through on that threat, then a future Democrat president who cannot get funding for some socialist pet project will have another avenue to bypass the legislative process.

Not Trump's fault Congress is hopelessly inept and corrupt. That's why they had a 12% approval rating before he ever came along and will still have it long after he is gone. You really think McConnell can be "bullied" by Trump or anyone else? Really?

[Hoot Gibson]

Not Trump's fault Congress is hopelessly inept and corrupt. That's why they had a 12% approval rating before he ever came along and will still have it long after he is gone. You really think McConnell can be "bullied" by Trump or anyone else? Really?

First, I repeat - I'm not faulting Trump for failing to get funding for a border wall because I never expected that he would and I voted for him anyway. I am faulting him for poor timing and pursuing a strategy that had no reasonable chance of succeeding.

Next, let's use your number and recall the conditions that Trump faced when he entered office in January, 2017. He had just won a national election. Thanks, in part to Trump's coattails, Republicans had gained Senate seats.

As you said, Congress's approval rating at that time hovered around 12 percent. If facing a Congress with a historically low approval rating was not a good time to exercise the power of the presidency to get his top legislative agenda item enacted, then what would you consider a better time to do so?

[jetpilot]

First, I repeat - I'm not faulting Trump for failing to get funding for a border wall because I never expected that he would and I voted for him anyway. I am faulting him for poor timing and pursuing a strategy that had no reasonable chance of succeeding.

Next, let's use your number and recall the conditions that Trump faced when he entered office in January, 2017. He had just won a national election. Thanks, in part to Trump's coattails, Republicans had gained Senate seats.

As you said, Congress's approval rating at that time hovered around 12 percent. If facing a Congress with a historically low approval rating was not a good time to exercise the power of the presidency to get his top legislative agenda item enacted, then what would you consider a better time to do so?

When Congress ceases to be so thoroughly corrupt and inept and have far less Republicans who are for open borders. They don't care about the 12% favorability rating as a body, they just care about getting re-elected. Trump nor anyone else can get those fools to do something they simply don't want to do. But watch him work around them and get it done anyway, which will make them look even more pathetic and hence dislike him even more.

[Hoot Gibson]

When Congress ceases to be so thoroughly corrupt and inept and have far less Republicans who are for open borders. They don't care about the 12% favorability rating as a body, they just care about getting re-elected. Trump nor anyone else can get those fools to do something they simply don't want to do. But watch him work around them and get it done anyway, which will make them look even more pathetic and hence dislike him even more.

I hope that you are right, but I will not be holding my breath. I don't think that bypassing Congress to spend money that was appropriated for other purposes will be well received by federal courts or by the general public, but we may find out soon if you are right.

Even if Trump succeeds in bypassing Congress, which has the constitutional responsibility of funding the federal government, it would set a horrible precedent that could be exploited by future liberal presidents.

[jetpilot]

I hope that you are right, but I will not be holding my breath. I don't think that bypassing Congress to spend money that was appropriated for other purposes will be well received by federal courts or by the general public, but we may find out soon if you are right.

Even if Trump succeeds in bypassing Congress, which has the constitutional responsibility of funding the federal government, it would set a horrible precedent that could be exploited by future liberal presidents.

Hasn't precedent already been set? National emergencies declared many times and I don't think Congress authorized Obama to send all those billions in cash to Iran?

[Hoot Gibson]

Hasn't precedent already been set? National emergencies declared many times and I don't think Congress authorized Obama to send all those billions in cash to Iran?

When I said precedent, I was referring to a legal precedent established through litigation. Republicans should have aggressively fought to undo Obama's deal with Iran in federal court, because he renamed what was a treaty and signed it without having it ratified by Congress. AFAIK, there was no court decision to validate the unconstitutional act that Obama took.

Even if there had been such a decision, based on what I have read, most of the cash that was sent to Iran was Iranian funds from the pre-Iranian revolution that had been frozen and the rest was related to a previously approved weapons deal with the former government of Iran. Don't get me wrong, the Iran deal was one of many things that Obama could have been impeached over, but committing an unconstitutional act that went unchallenged in the courts did not set a legal precedent.

[jetpilot]

^^^Well Obama still didn't have authority to release funds and also decide on his own to pay extra billions for hostages. He didn't give a flip about hostages, just a way to funnel money to Iran.

As for legal precedent, Dems do it all the time with no legal precedent and Repubs can't? You already stated Repubs should have challenged in court. So I say fund the wall and if courts rule unconstitutional go arrest Obama for all the times he did it. And use swat teams, tanks and the Air Force like they did for Roger Stone.

[Hoot Gibson]

^^^Well Obama still didn't have authority to release funds and also decide on his own to pay extra billions for hostages. He didn't give a flip about hostages, just a way to funnel money to Iran.

As for legal precedent, Dems do it all the time with no legal precedent and Repubs can't? You already stated Repubs should have challenged in court. So I say fund the wall and if courts rule unconstitutional go arrest Obama for all the times he did it. And use swat teams, tanks and the Air Force like they did for Roger Stone.

I am not in favor of Republicans ignoring their constitutional duties because Democrats do so. I am very much in favor of Republicans pursuing justice for criminal Democrats.

I also disagree with your suggestion that the FBI give Obama the same treatment as it gave to Roger Stone, although I like the notion of giving Obama and the Democrats a taste of their own medicine. Trump's promise to re-open the Hillary Clinton investigation and get justice for her and her co-conspirators is another campaign promise that I never believed he intended to keep - but that would be an entirely appropriate response to the FBI targeting his friends and family.

If the Trump Justice Department appointed special prosecutors for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, and the rest of the criminals who "served" during the previous administration, I would support the move 100 percent.

Federal law enforcement agencies abuse their power every day, no matter which party controls the White House. They threaten to bring charges, or actually bring charges, against the family and friends of their targets for leverage to secure plea bargains.

People like Obama, who made a fortune during his public "service" career, can afford $600/hr.+ lawyers for his family and friends. Most Americans face financial ruin when threatened by their own federal government and the feds don't care about guilt or innocence as long as the result is a conviction.

If I had my way, I would downsize every federal law enforcement agency and de-federalize as many crimes as possible. Most crimes, law enforcement, and punishment should be handled by the state and local law enforcement.

Crimes by federal employees, such as those that Hillary Clinton and her gang committed, should and would be enforced by the federal government in a perfect world.

I would like to see federal legislation that would protect families and friends of federal law enforcement targets and provide stiff penalties for prosecutors who threaten to bring charges against innocent bystanders as leverage to elicit plea bargains.

[jetpilot]

I am not in favor of Republicans ignoring their constitutional duties because Democrats do so. I am very much in favor of Republicans pursuing justice for criminal Democrats.

I also disagree with your suggestion that the FBI give Obama the same treatment as it gave to Roger Stone, although I like the notion of giving Obama and the Democrats a taste of their own medicine. Trump's promise to re-open the Hillary Clinton investigation and get justice for her and her co-conspirators is another campaign promise that I never believed he intended to keep - but that would be an entirely appropriate response to the FBI targeting his friends and family.

If the Trump Justice Department appointed special prosecutors for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, and the rest of the criminals who "served" during the previous administration, I would support the move 100 percent.

Federal law enforcement agencies abuse their power every day, no matter which party controls the White House. They threaten to bring charges, or actually bring charges, against the family and friends of their targets for leverage to secure plea bargains.

People like Obama, who made a fortune during his public "service" career, can afford $600/hr.+ lawyers for his family and friends. Most Americans face financial ruin when threatened by their own federal government and the feds don't care about guilt or innocence as long as the result is a conviction.

If I had my way, I would downsize every federal law enforcement agency and de-federalize as many crimes as possible. Most crimes, law enforcement, and punishment should be handled by the state and local law enforcement.

Crimes by federal employees, such as those that Hillary Clinton and her gang committed, should and would be enforced by the federal government in a perfect world.

I would like to see federal legislation that would protect families and friends of federal law enforcement targets and provide stiff penalties for prosecutors who threaten to bring charges against innocent bystanders as leverage to elicit plea bargains.

It's real simple. Declare emergency, fund the $5.7B, fast-track it to Supreme Court. Indirect benefit is it will heal up Ginsburg real fast like.

[Hoot Gibson]

It's real simple. Declare emergency, fund the $5.7B, fast-track it to Supreme Court. Indirect benefit is it will heal up Ginsburg real fast like.

There would be no benefit if the Supreme Court declined to take up the case or ruled against Trump. The SCOTUS historically has not been eager to get involved in issues that can be resolved by the other two branches of government.

I would not be shocked to see Trump lose if the issue makes it to the Supreme Court. In fact a 7-2 or 6-3 decision against Trump would be no surprise, but neither of us is a constitutional law expert.

[jetpilot]

There would be no benefit if the Supreme Court declined to take up the case or ruled against Trump. The SCOTUS historically has not been eager to get involved in issues that can be resolved by the other two branches of government.

I would not be shocked to see Trump lose if the issue makes it to the Supreme Court. In fact a 7-2 or 6-3 decision against Trump would be no surprise, but neither of us is a constitutional law expert.

We have been around the world of what ifs, should haves, and what nows, and nothing works for you at all except it's Trump's fault. Trump will get the wall built, and those who don't want him to get the proper credit will just have to eat it.

[Hoot Gibson]

We have been around the world of what ifs, should haves, and what nows, and nothing works for you at all except it's Trump's fault. Trump will get the wall built, and those who don't want him to get the proper credit will just have to eat it.

The only thing that we know is that we will both know whether or not a wall has been built in about 2 years. If you are right, Trump will soon throw a Hail Mary pass to the federal courts.