• 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!

McConnell blocks House bills to reopen government

If the Democrats are sincere I see a very easy political win for them and they are blowing it big time.

They claim they are for border security so why not pass standalone Bill's for it

They can write a bill to provide detention centers more beds and dare trump not to sign it.
Then send him a bill to hire more border agents.
Then one for drones
Send bill after bill to him for their version of border security, no strings attached

Then they have an argument to make against trump. They can claim they have compromised all that they will and they went first. They can go back to saying no wall. Now open the government.

Imo that would put Trump in a difficult position but they ain't smart enough to do that or they really do not want to improve border security.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
That's not a bad, idea from a Dem perspective. I agree.

Straight-up:

I left the Dems a long time ago for various reasons, one of them being their tolerance for illegal immigration. I just recently came back, predominately due to Trump. I didn't come back easily, and don't know how long I'll stay. I'll see how it goes. But I am really encouraged by the young, unknown, and diverse group of new Dem candidates that were swept into the House. I find it pretty exciting, to be honest. As long as it doesn't slip into naive, idealistic, ineffectual pandemonium; which is always a danger.
 
Here is the big picture:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...jpg/320px-United_States–Mexico_border_map.jpg

There are also 48 recognized international points of entry on the us Mexico border, so how will the proposed wall take these points of entry into consideration?

Another thing to point out is that the border between Texas and Mexico follows the course of the rio grande river, and that is something that is going to pose a major problem to building the wall. The problem being whether the United States is stupid enough to build a barrier that impedes the flow of the river, angering Mexico because the rio grande is a major source of water to them.

points of entry are not of an issue as that is exactly where you are supposed to enter the US.
the rest of what you post is just nonsense.
 
That's not a bad, idea from a Dem perspective. I agree.

Straight-up:

I left the Dems a long time ago for various reasons, one of them being their tolerance for illegal immigration. I just recently came back, predominately due to Trump. I didn't come back easily, and don't know how long I'll stay. I'll see how it goes. But I am really encouraged by the young, unknown, and diverse group of new Dem candidates that were swept into the House. I find it pretty exciting, to be honest. As long as it doesn't slip into naive, idealistic, ineffectual pandemonium; which is always a danger.

This is the deal for dem's and if republicans are smart they will do this right now.
DACA legislation for wall funding.

that is the deal. they need to throw that out there first and be in front of it.

if the dem's reject it then they will have to answer for how they rejected the DACA bill and border security all in one setting.
they are blowing this up big time but that is why appeal to emotion arguments never work and why they are fallacies.
 
points of entry are not of an issue as that is exactly where you are supposed to enter the US.
the rest of what you post is just nonsense.

I referred you to a map of the Mexican American border, and pointed out a prominent feature of that border: the rio grande river, which is a geographical feature that has served as the unofficial dividing line between Mexico and the state of Texas.

If trump wants to construct a continuous border wall, the rio grande river is something that has to be addressed so that the flow of water is not impeded by a unnecessary physical barrier.

Oh and the rio grande river is known to flood from time to time, so the environment will pose a major threat to the wall if the wall is built in an location known to flood.
 
That's not a bad, idea from a Dem perspective. I agree.

Straight-up:

I left the Dems a long time ago for various reasons, one of them being their tolerance for illegal immigration. I just recently came back, predominately due to Trump. I didn't come back easily, and don't know how long I'll stay. I'll see how it goes. But I am really encouraged by the young, unknown, and diverse group of new Dem candidates that were swept into the House. I find it pretty exciting, to be honest. As long as it doesn't slip into naive, idealistic, ineffectual pandemonium; which is always a danger.
I dont care for the embracing of socialist ideas but I agree that it's an exciting time for the Democrats. They are redefining themselves.

They will face similar challenges to what the tea party faced. They need to focus on their primary races.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Murkowski, Collins, and Gardner, are the three. I'm a bit surprised it stuck at three for the last 3 or 4 days, to be honest. But as the effects become more prominent, the heat will be on despite Trump's PR flailings.

In addition:

Tillis is getting a lot of heat and demonstrations at his NC office, and several days ago said he'd like a compromise. A day later he walked that back a bit, saying he would like a compromise, but would not change his current vote at this time; whatever the hell that means?

McSally is in a very precarious position. She's worth watching.

And of course the bellwether may be Ernst. She's in a moderate state that might be on the verge of tipping Dem. If Ernst goes, I believe McConnell will be forced to do something, even if behind the scenes.

Good point on Manchin & Jones. Very good point.

Murkowski has always been more or less independent. I think one tends to forget she won her seat as an independent. She defeated Republican nominee Joe Miller and Democrat McAdams. Gardner is from a light blue state and Maine is at least light blue. Really no surprise there. Tillis is up in 2020, North Carolina isn't a deep red state anymore, light red. Arizona I think is purple now to perhaps turning light blue. She lost once already to Sinema. When she ran, she ran as an avid Trump supporter, but lost the independent vote to Sinema. If she turns on Trump, she'll be primaried out. If she sticks with Trump, chances are she loses again in 2020.

there's probably a few more in McSally's position. Tillis is another. Trump's approval in North Carolina has dropped from 60% a year ago down to 46% today. Tillis is another that if he crosses Trump, primaried out, sticks with Trump, another good chance he loses in 2020. North Carolina is moving into the purple position. Not quite yet, it is still a very light red.
 
it doesn't have to mention texas by default it would account for any border that would stand between the US and mexico including
texas and any judge would agree with that.

:bs

:2wave:
 
it doesn't have to mention texas by default it would account for any border that would stand between the US and mexico including
texas and any judge would agree with that.

The rio grande river is the border separating Mexico from Texas.
 
yet another liberal that doesn't know the constitution.
wanting border security is protecting and serving the people.

allowing illegals that have been deported numerous times and have killed and murdered people to stay
in the country and not be arrested or deported is well not protecting the country.

you should talk to CA and your liberal pals about that one.

Let's start with the topic here and not divert from it, shall we? The topic is whether or not Mitch McConnell has the legal right to block any bills from being brought to the president. The short answer is no, he is not legally allowed by virtue of the U.S. Constitution to refuse to do the job he has been duly elected to do and to which he has sworn an oath on a Bible. Remember, Mitch McConnell had blocked a bill for nearly a year that would prevent any Senate hearings on Merrick Garland. That's one more dereliction of duty by Mitch McConnell. The Republican Senate has also defeated a bill that would protect the Mueller investigation from being interfered with.

There is a principled and genuine disagreement about the role Congress has in overseeing the executive branch. People do not want to hear, much less understand, that our government is composed of three individual and separate branches of government and each with equal powers. We are not a banana republic where a dictator gets to make the laws of the land. We are still a democratic republic and those are the laws set forth by our founding fathers in the U.S. Constitution.

McConnell does not have the power to block a bill from being voted on. No senator does, not even the majority leader. Any senator can propose that a bill receive a vote. And if 51 senators want it to receive a vote, they can ensure that it does.

I would argue that it is you that hasn't a clue about U.S. Constitutional law.
 
That's not a bad, idea from a Dem perspective. I agree.

Straight-up:

I left the Dems a long time ago for various reasons, one of them being their tolerance for illegal immigration. I just recently came back, predominately due to Trump. I didn't come back easily, and don't know how long I'll stay. I'll see how it goes. But I am really encouraged by the young, unknown, and diverse group of new Dem candidates that were swept into the House. I find it pretty exciting, to be honest. As long as it doesn't slip into naive, idealistic, ineffectual pandemonium; which is always a danger.

There are already Bills piling up in the Senate. Who's guaranteeing that McConnell will even allow this gaggle of Bills to come to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
 
Let's start with the topic here and not divert from it, shall we? The topic is whether or not Mitch McConnell has the legal right to block any bills from being brought to the president. The short answer is no, he is not legally allowed by virtue of the U.S. Constitution to refuse to do the job he has been duly elected to do and to which he has sworn an oath on a Bible. Remember, Mitch McConnell had blocked a bill for nearly a year that would prevent any Senate hearings on Merrick Garland. That's one more dereliction of duty by Mitch McConnell. The Republican Senate has also defeated a bill that would protect the Mueller investigation from being interfered with.

There is a principled and genuine disagreement about the role Congress has in overseeing the executive branch. People do not want to hear, much less understand, that our government is composed of three individual and separate branches of government and each with equal powers. We are not a banana republic where a dictator gets to make the laws of the land. We are still a democratic republic and those are the laws set forth by our founding fathers in the U.S. Constitution.

McConnell does not have the power to block a bill from being voted on. No senator does, not even the majority leader. Any senator can propose that a bill receive a vote. And if 51 senators want it to receive a vote, they can ensure that it does.

I would argue that it is you that hasn't a clue about U.S. Constitutional law.

That is true. The problem is that there would need to be 51 lined up to buck McConnell. They might be close right now. But not there yet.

McConnell has got a looooooong memory to boot.

There is at least one Dem I would not trust to hold the line. Doesn't sound like much. But even if every Dem holds up his end, assuming the 3 that Republicans making noise would vote with them, it still leaves 3 more Republicans to flip even with every Dem voting as a block.
 
Last edited:
Like they're going to say that out loud? There actions and pontifications speaks loudly enough.

I'm not a mind reader or a word interpreter, Bullseye. I don't pretend to know what someone is really saying. I hear words and base it on reality, not what I assume.
 
I'm not a mind reader or a word interpreter, Bullseye. I don't pretend to know what someone is really saying. I hear words and base it on reality, not what I assume.
Not my problem. But I will remember this post for future reference.
 
What's the point in bringing a bill to the floor does not even have a simple majority let alone the 60 needed

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The reality is that the bills to reopen the government outside of DHS funding would have more than the 60 required votes needed to gain cloture. And certainly well more than the 50+1 to pass the chamber. That is why McConnell is refusing to bring them to the floor for a vote. He would be pitting Republican against Republican, as Trump would then be forced to either follow through on his veto promise, or back down and sign the approved legislation. Either way, it would be a loss for Republicans on this issue. McConnell knows this, and is nothing if not a tribal partisan through and through.
 
The reality is that the bills to reopen the government outside of DHS funding would have more than the 60 required votes needed to gain cloture. And certainly well more than the 50+1 to pass the chamber. That is why McConnell is refusing to bring them to the floor for a vote. He would be pitting Republican against Republican, as Trump would then be forced to either follow through on his veto promise, or back down and sign the approved legislation. Either way, it would be a loss for Republicans on this issue. McConnell knows this, and is nothing if not a tribal partisan through and through.

And if the 6 funding CR's (not DHS) were passed, Trump would have no government hostages for his vanity wall.

In effect, McConnell is guaranteeing that Trump has government hostages for as long as they are useful to him.
 
And if the 6 funding CR's (not DHS) were passed, Trump would have no government hostages for his vanity wall.

In effect, McConnell is guaranteeing that Trump has government hostages for as long as they are useful to him.

Indeed. Which shows quite clearly how the GOP wholly and fully own this shutdown, and all of the pains average Americans are feeling as a direct result.
 
Indeed. Which shows quite clearly how the GOP wholly and fully own this shutdown, and all of the pains average Americans are feeling as a direct result.

Oh certainly. Protests have already begun at the White House.
 
Oh certainly. Protests have already begun at the White House.

Protests by whom? At the rate they're going, there will be little more than the First Family and Protective detail remaining there. :lol:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/us/politics/white-house-government-shutdown.html

Only 156 of the Executive Mansion’s 359 full-time employees are allowed to report for duty because their work is considered essential, according to a government contingency plan.

ETA: I knew you meant outside protests. In case that is not clear. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom