Laelia wrote:
Jubbergun wrote:
Laelia wrote:
A filibuster in the Senate requires 60 votes to break. There are 58 Democrats in the Senate. 58 < 60.
Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders caucus with the Democrats...that makes 60.
You're forgiven for not knowing that since you're a Canadian and it's not really relevant to you.
Your Pal,
Jubber
They were included in the 58 members. 56 members of the party and 2 independents who are members of the caucus. Even though I was right, I appreciate your forgiveness; what's your excuse for being wrong?
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfmProbably because the link I looked at earlier counted Lieberman and Saunders as democrats (lol got me) and I add two to that. Derpa-derpa.
Mns wrote:
He can't be wrong. One fuckup and his entire world view is shattered.
Sort of like how if everything goes his way, he thinks he isn't going to be deported.
You do realize that the Mexican Forklift Artiste thing is a joke and I'm not actually Mexican, right?
rikkilake wrote:
the fact that half the democratic party are a bunch of fencewalking mother fuckers who will side with the status quo no matter what it may be very much proves that they don't have a filibuster-proof congress and thus my point triumphs.
You know, I didn't think of this earlier, but why is it that when republicans break with their party, they're touted as beacons of bi-partisanship, "mavericks" who make their own rules, or just generally swell guys? Then when a democrat does it, they're called things like "fencewalking mother fuckers who will side with the status quo no matter what?"
Your Pal,
Jubber
