2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;426805]You are simply incorrect. The fact is, the Democrats DID have a filibuster proof majority during the first few years of Obama's administration, which is EXACTLY how Obamacare was able to be passed by the Senate (60-39, one abstention, exactly along party lines including the two "independents") The filibuster proof majority ended upon Ted Kennedy's death and Republican Scott Brown's victory in the special election to replace TK.[/QUOTE]The fact that Lieberman voted with the Democrats on one important piece of Legislation did not make him a reliable member of the Democratic majority. He was not a Democrat in 2009, and is not one now. He voted with them on the Healthcare act. But his vote could not be counted upon in any number of contentious pieces of legislation. And in actual fact, Lieberman forced the elimination of the public option as a condition of his vote. To please his benefactors in the Connecticut-based Insurance industry. There is a difference between having the votes on one bill, and having control of the seat. The Democrats had the votes on that piece of legislation, but they did not control 60 seats in the Senate at any time during Obama's Presidency, and Lieberman leveraged his position in a manner no actual Democrat could have or would have in providing that final vote.

And to answer Punter 127's question - nobody controls the Senate now, and nobody has controlled it during the Obama Presidency - which is why, in such a divisive climate, nothing gets passed in the Senate.

[QUOTE=Member #2041; 426809]

And to answer Punter 127's question. Nobody controls the Senate now, and nobody has controlled it during the Obama Presidency. Which is why, in such a divisive climate, nothing gets passed in the Senate. [snip][/QUOTE]Wrong, You can't pass bills if the Leader won't bring them to the floor for a vote. So who's the obstructionist now?

Spain is about to implode, will Franco re-emerge?

[QUOTE=Esten;426787]I'll pay for the Rubia, David will pay for the Morocha.[/QUOTE]No problem, I always pay my debts.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;426810]Wrong, You can't pass bills if the Leader won't bring them to the floor for a vote. So who's the obstructionist now?[/QUOTE]Any bill that has 60 votes in support will be brought to the floor irrespective of who has a majority of seats. The Senate's rules work that way. No bill will get 60 votes in the Senate as it is presently constituted, so it's a moot point.

The Charts will show, in a 5 year period under Bush there were many Fraudulent Voters.

The Red is the Number of people and the percentage.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426816]Any bill that has 60 votes in support will be brought to the floor irrespective of who has a majority of seats. The Senate's rules work that way. No bill will get 60 votes in the Senate as it is presently constituted, so it's a moot point.[/QUOTE]Are you saying only bills with 60 votes get voted on? If so how does anything ever get voted down?

[QUOTE=Punter 127;426820]Are you saying only bills with 60 votes get voted on? If so how does anything ever get voted down?[/QUOTE]No, bills that the majority party supports get brought to the floor, but fillibustered if they lack 60 votes. Whereas bills that the minority party supports don't get brought to the floor without 60 votes. In essence, there is no difference, as neither party can get a bill passed without 60 votes, so long as the minority party consistently uses the fillibuster. All of this is why nothing gets done in the Senate when everything is hyperpartisan as is presently the case. Net net, neither party has control of the Senate sufficient to get a bill passed without significant crossing of the aisle, and only ultra-rare bipartisan bills get passed.

Member 2041 if you wish to see voter fraud in action you need look no further than the 1998 Minnesota Senatorial fight between Democrat Al Franken and incumbent Republican Norm Coleman.

ACORN was very active in Minnesota as well as many other states during this period, between ACORN's registration efforts and the Minnesota Democratic machines utter failure to correctly recount the votes somehow destroying original documents, retaining multiple copies of destroyed original documents, permitting ineligible felons to vote and the list goes on which resulted in Franken beating Coleman. Even the courts concluded there was no way to reach a 'real' total. They did not even address ACORN's voter's fraud, nor were they interested in doing so.

Regarding ACORN, how many of their state officers ended up on trial and convicted of voter fraud, many! Democrats are never interested in curbing fraud as the deem it to work in their favor.

Regarding voting in the Senate, Harry Ried has refused to bring legislation passed in the House to the Senate floor blocking both debate and any vote. I suspect he is worried some Democrats might jump ship and join the Republicans to pass legislation otherwise he would let the bills reach the floor for debate since neither side has 60 members. It makes your 60 vote argument moot. Also tax bills only need a majority to pass not 60 votes, which is why I suspect Roberts ruled ObamaCare a TAX.

The fact is, courts validated the legitimacy of Franken's victory over Coleman. You've still not shown any fraudulent national election result due to Acorn, nor anyone else in the past several decades in the USA.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;426824]Member 2041 if you wish to see voter fraud in action you need look no further than the 1998 Minnesota Senatorial fight between Democrat Al Franken and incumbent Republican Norm Coleman.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426822]No, bills that the majority party supports get brought to the floor, but filibustered if they lack 60 votes. Whereas bills that the minority party supports don't get brought to the floor without 60 votes. In essence, there is no difference, as neither party can get a bill passed without 60 votes, so long as the minority party consistently uses the filibuster. All of this is why nothing gets done in the Senate when everything is hyperpartisan as is presently the case. Net net, neither party has control of the Senate sufficient to get a bill passed without significant crossing of the aisle, and only ultra-rare bipartisan bills get passed.[/QUOTE]Not entirely true, as usual. In fact, nothing gets voted on in the Senate unless Sir Harry Reid first permits it, which is why every Republican bill passed by the House and every Republican bill initiated in the Senate are immediately dead on arrival, this fact being in direct contrast to the liberal media's portrayal of the Republicans as the obstructionists.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;426820]Are you saying only bills with 60 votes get voted on? If so how does anything ever get voted down?[/QUOTE]Actually, there's an exception to this via a procedured called "Reconciliation": Bills regarding the budget only require 50% of the Senator's vote to be advanced to a full vote on the bill itself, this prooving necessary to prevent a filibuster from stopping the passage of budget (aka "spending") bills.

Of course, we haven't seen an actual Budget Bill since the beginning of the Obama Adminsitration, but that's another story.
Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson;426826]Not entirely true, as usual. In fact, nothing gets voted on in the Senate unless Sir Harry Reid first permits it, which is why every Republican bill passed by the House and every Republican bill initiated in the Senate are immediately dead on arrival, this fact being in direct contrast to the liberal media's portrayal of the Republicans as the obstructionists.[/QUOTE]None of those bills had 60 Senators supporting them. If they had, they could have forced their way around Sir Harry.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426828]None of those bills had 60 Senators supporting them. If they had, they could have forced their way around Sir Harry.[/QUOTE]Yes, but many of those bills had 51 Senators supporting them, but we'll never know because Reid won't even let them come up for a vote.

That's just wrong.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 426829]Yes, but many of those bills had 51 Senators supporting them, but we'll never know because Reid won't even let them come up for a vote.

That's just wrong.[/QUOTE]It's not any more wrong than a minority party filibuster. They are the opposite sides of the same coin, and it's the way the Senate operates.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426830]It's not any more wrong than a minority party filibuster. They are the opposite sides of the same coin, and it's the way the Senate operates.[/QUOTE]One individual preventing a vote in the USA Senate isn't any worse than 40 out of 100 preventing the vote? Or does that just apply if the majority of the 40 are Republicans?