• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sleasebag Schumer attempts to adjourn Senate.

Bullseye

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
47,705
Reaction score
16,576
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Chuckie Schumer makes move, and fails fortunately, to adjourn Senate until after election - three weeks of no action just to block ACB. What a damn sleaze. Fortunately Senate rejected him.

Republicans on Monday shot down an effort by Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to adjourn the Senate until after the election, a move that would have effectively punted Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation until after Nov. 3.

Schumer moved to adjourn the Senate until Nov. 9, with the caveat that if a coronavirus relief deal was reached by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin that they would return to vote.
Click to expand...
 
After 5 months of inactivity, Moscow Mitch McConnell still won't put a stimulus bill on the Senate floor.

The GOP just doesn't care about Americans impacted by COVID.
 
Rogue Valley said:
After 5 months of inactivity, Moscow Mitch McConnell still won't put a stimulus bill on the Senate floor.

The GOP just doesn't care about Americans impacted by COVID.
Click to expand...
Pure nonsense. He put one on the floor a few weeks ago - Dems blocked it.
 
Nickyjo said:
If true, shame on a politician for attempting to use a parliamentary procedure to advance political aims. As far as I can tell, Schumer is the first in history to try this.
Click to expand...
And you may be the first to make a miserable attempt at sarcasm.
 
Bullseye said:
Chuckie Schumer makes move, and fails fortunately, to adjourn Senate until after election - three weeks of no action just to block ACB. What a damn sleaze. Fortunately Senate rejected him.
Click to expand...

Whining about sleaze? A Trumpist? Hilarious.

The GOP made up bullshit to justify stealing Garland's seat, then ignored it to justify sitting Barrett. At this point, all's fair. Hopefully the Dems screw you lot over completely, utterly, and irretrievably. I and many others are sick of watching Dems assume you'll play by the rules, and then you kick the Dems in the balls.

Good for Democracy? No. But you're already doing your best to destroy it so..... whatevs. Ride the bomb down, yadda yadda.
 
Mr Person said:
Whining about sleaze? A Trumpist? Hilarious.

The GOP made up bullshit to justify stealing Garland's seat, then ignored it to justify sitting Barrett. At this point, all's fair. Hopefully the Dems screw you lot over completely, utterly, and irretrievably. I and many others are sick of watching Dems assume you'll play by the rules, and then you kick the Dems in the balls.

Good for Democracy? No. But you're already doing your best to destroy it so..... whatevs. Ride the bomb down, yadda yadda.
Click to expand...
Bullshiting.jpg
 
Fishking said:
Uhhh...there are many things that Schumer is a sleaze for but this isn't one of them. This is less egregious than McConnell not holding a vote for Obama's nominee. In fact, this is almost a yawn-inducing move.
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you guys always whine about that. Fact is historically 8 of 10 cross party nominations have failed. Not very good odds.
 
Bullseye said:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you guys always whine about that. Fact is historically 8 of 10 cross party nominations have failed. Not very good odds.
Click to expand...

*shrug* And how many times have Senators attempted to use procedural measures to block the majority's actions? Too many to count so...what is your point again?
 
Fishking said:
*shrug* And how many times have Senators attempted to use procedural measures to block the majority's actions? Too many to count so...what is your point again?
Click to expand...
LOL, and your post resembles a basketball.
 
Fishking said:
I take your nonsensical response to mean you have conceded the point?
Click to expand...
Nope. Just decided it's not worth the effort to respond.
 
Bullseye said:
And you may be the first to make a miserable attempt at sarcasm.
Click to expand...
Easy to be sarcastic about a nothing burger. How is what Schumer tried any different than McConnell’s moves these past years?
 
Nickyjo said:
Easy to be sarcastic about a nothing burger. How is what Schumer tried any different than McConnell’s moves these past years?
Click to expand...
Nickyjo said:
Easy to be sarcastic about a nothing burger. How is what Schumer tried any different than McConnell’s moves these past years?
Click to expand...
Nickyjo said:
Easy to be sarcastic about a nothing burger. How is what Schumer tried any different than McConnell’s moves these past years?
Click to expand...
You mean other than delaying billions in aid to suffering American families and businesses?
 
Bullseye said:
You mean other than delaying billions in aid to suffering American families and businesses?
Click to expand...
I'm surprised to see you admit McConnell has done that. Bravo!
 
Fishking said:
Uhhh...there are many things that Schumer is a sleaze for but this isn't one of them. This is less egregious than McConnell not holding a vote for Obama's nominee. In fact, this is almost a yawn-inducing move.
Click to expand...
That halting of the Garland nomination is nothing new in the Senate. The Senate majority always gets what it wants with court nominations.

The reason why Reid suspended the super majority needed to confirm a judicial nominee is because the GOP-controlled Senate wouldn't confirm any of BO's judicial nominations. If the Senate confirms a judicial choice from a president that is the head of a political party other than the majority party of the Senate, that is because the majority party in the Senate wants to confirm the judicial nominee.
 
Last edited:
all Rs had to do was not hold up Obama's SC nominee for almost a year.
 
CaughtInThe said:
all Rs had to do was not hold up Obama's SC nominee for almost a year.
Click to expand...
And how would that effect millions of unemployed people and bankrupt businesses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom