Posted on 12/14/2014 10:49:21 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
It’s a question that will prove crucial next year when Mitch McConnell takes the reins of a new Senate: Just how big is the Ted Cruz caucus?
Three votes on the “cromnibus” late Saturday night suggest it could be as large as 22 senators — a dangerously high number for McConnell — or as few as a handful.
Let’s break down the three votes — on filibustering the $1.1 trillion package, on Cruz’s point of order aimed at targeting the president’s immigration action, and final passage.
The high-water mark for the Texas Republican came on his point of order vote, which 22 Republicans backed. While that represented a thumping, it could also be seen as a show of strength against the McConnell forces. Just 20 Republicans, including McConnell Republican Whip John Cornyn of Texas voted against Cruz; three did not vote.
Cruz’s point of order itself basically contended that the underlying bill was unconstitutional because it didn’t block President Barack Obama’s immigration action. Many Republicans, including Cruz, say they oppose the immigration action but don’t think the cromnibus itself is unconstitutional.
On final passage of the cromnibus, 18 Republicans voted no.
But only 12 Republicans joined Cruz in both votes for both his point of order and against the cromnibus. They are: Sens. Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, Mike Lee of Utah, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Rob Portman of Ohio, Jim Risch of Idaho, Marco Rubio of Florida, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama and David Vitter of Louisiana.
Nine others switched to yes on final passage after voting with Cruz to say the bill itself was unconstitutional. They are: Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, John Boozman of Arkansas, Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Pat Roberts of Kansas and John Thune of South Dakota. Johanns is retiring.
Those nine Republicans ended up providing the margin of victory for the underlying cromnibus, which passed 56-40.
Even that group of a dozen might be overstating Cruz’s hold on the GOP.
An even smaller subset of the Senate Republicans — 11 of them — voted with Cruz against final passage, for his point of order and to filibuster the bill in the first place: Crapo, Lee, Moran, Paul, Portman, Risch, Rubio, Scott, Shelby, Sessions and Vitter.
That’s more than enough to cause McConnell trouble given that he will have 54 Republicans in his camp and will need to get to 60 votes on most bills and likely 51 Republicans to pass a budget resolution.
Notable in the group who consistently voted with Cruz are his potential presidential rivals Paul and Rubio.
It’s also worth noting that Rubio continues his shift to the right after helping write the Senate immigration bill last year.
No Democrats supported the Cruz point of order.
Correction, 11:28 a.m.
An earlier version of this post omitted Scott as voting against cloture.
I can't find the Commandment that says, "Thou shalt not smoke pot - but alcohol is OK."
Drunkenness, the state of being intoxicated, that's what the Bible exhorts against.
By "drunk" are you using the ordinary secular meaning, which excludes moderate effect (such as 'relaxation')? If so, then use of other drugs to that degree is likewise not contrary to the Bible.
Or if you include any degree of effect in "drunk," then should the "bigger stick" of government appealed to by the original poster be brought to bear against being to any degree affected by alcohol?
Can you find the one that says; Thou Shalt Not promote drug use on a Conservative Christian web forum?
This is George Soros’ (and other financial elites) drug legalization argument, designed to “baffle” “social conservatives” with a “conundrum”.
The elites are morons in this regard; however most sheeple allow themselves to be tricked by the flawed reasoning.
Technically, yes, you could grow your own pot secretly in your house so no one knew, smoke a tiny amount yourself and somehow stop smoking before you started giggling like an idiot - in theory - and just get a little “relaxed”.
That’s all in theory. In practice, any mature adult will admit that they’re actually getting high, instead of trying to play word games, like I didn’t inhale, etc.
Everyone who’s smoked pot knows it’s about getting high. Most will admit that the drug culture from the 60’s was (and is) all about getting high.
Not to mention, the a) slothfulness and b) partying mentalities that tend to take over a person’s life are obviously exhorted against in the Bible consistently throughout.
Yes, there ALWAYS used to be and SHOULD be laws against PUBLIC drunkenness.
If I get drunk in a bar drinking beer, wine, etc., and stumble out into the street and go walkin’ about, yes, I should be arrested for public drunkenness.
We must always keep in mind that the financial elites ARE the world’s drug lords, and they also run the CIA.
This goes back generations; the reader can read up on the Russells (started Skull and Bones and were opium traders), Warren Delano, etc.
This is why the US military is protecting the production of Afghan opium to the tune of 90% of the world’s production; CIA/Skull and Bones/big banks all are run by people who work for the financial elites. The elites have these “minions” in government (like the Bush family, Clintons, CIA heads, etc.) make sure the top-level (billions worth) of drug trade continues as it has for centuries.
Of course, publicly everyone is “against” the drug lords. We just somehow “can’t seem to find them”.
What does "no one knowing" have to do with anything?
smoke a tiny amount yourself and somehow stop smoking before you started giggling like an idiot - in theory - and just get a little “relaxed”.
Not only is it technically possible, I've done it myself in my younger days.
Everyone who’s smoked pot knows it’s about getting high.
When alcohol was illegal, drinking was about getting drunk.
Not to mention, the a) slothfulness and b) partying mentalities that tend to take over a person’s life
It's been known to happen - but I know of no reliable evidence that it "tends" to happen.
are obviously exhorted against in the Bible consistently throughout.
As are those same sins when lubricated by alcohol use, which certainly has been known to happen.
Yes, there ALWAYS used to be and SHOULD be laws against PUBLIC drunkenness.
Agreed - and ditto for PUBLIC high-ness.
Sure you are you just want to be self righteous about it.
“no one knowing” has to do with if you need your high so much then you, like countless millions of other others have the option of breaking the law.
It’s not Biblical - the Bible tells us that we are required to break civil laws IF and only if they contradict Scripture. In that case, Scripture is to be our guide. But if the civil laws only take away something that we enjoy, Scripture instructs the believer in Christ to follow the civil laws.
You can give up on the comparisons to alcohol.
Our Lord performed the miracle of turning water into wine for a wedding feast, and instituted wine as part of the Lord’s Supper; alcohol in moderation is Scripturally acceptable.
However, there is no mention in Scripture of it being acceptable to get high using other substances.
There are Scriptural admonitions against pursuing intoxication.
Intoxication is the only point to partaking of intoxicating substances.
Sure you are you just want to be self righteous about it.
Wrong no matter how often you repeat it. I notice you omitted the following point from your reply and gave no response - why is that?
Do you support the legality of alcohol and tobacco, and if so, are you thereby promoting their use?
However, there is no mention in Scripture of it being acceptable to get high using other substances.
There is no mention in Scripture of it being acceptable to use the Internet - you'd better stop.
There are Scriptural admonitions against pursuing intoxication.
Intoxication is the only point to partaking of intoxicating substances.
When alcohol or another drug is illegal, it's typically used for intoxication - no distinction there.
I don't try to justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior, nor do I engage in Moral Equivalence arguments where none exists.
ROTFL - I notice you omitted it AGAIN!
Do you support the legality of alcohol and tobacco, and if so, are you thereby promoting their use?
I don't try to justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior,
Nobody's asking you to "justify" anything; your opinion that the use of alcohol and tobacco is "bad behavior" is noted (and I agree that it's behavior that's best avoided). You haven't addressed the question ... let's take it one step at a time:
Do you support or oppose the legality of alcohol and tobacco?
nor do I engage in Moral Equivalence arguments where none exists.
The only "equivalence" being proposed is that support for legality doesn't imply promotion, whatever the substance in question.
Do you support or oppose the legality of alcohol and tobacco?
I don't care one way or another because the reality is they are legal and have been for all of my life.
I started smoking when I was 5 years old that would have been in 1943, I would not recommend it. My first alcohol came from a still my uncle ran in the Cookson Hills, in 1951, I don't recommend that either.
I don't care one way or another because the reality is they are legal and have been for all of my life.
There's been a welfare state for all of your life - do you therefore not care about that one way or another?
However, there is no mention in Scripture of it being acceptable to get high using other substances.
There is no mention in Scripture of it being acceptable to use the Internet - you'd better stop.
Christians would understand the concept of Christian liberty. The fact that you made the above snarky statement demonstrates that you're either knowingly or unkowingly using false arguments
Either both our arguments are false or neither are, as they're completely parallel in structure.
Could you be yet another in the little army of trolls posing on FR as "conservatives" or "professing Christians" who actually are pushing a globalist agenda ?
I'm not. Could you be yet another in the little army of nanny-statists who quickly stoop to personal smears when they run out of arguments?
When alcohol or another drug is illegal, it's typically used for intoxication - no distinction there.
Wrong, wine or beer with a meal is not pursuing intoxication.
Which part of "When alcohol is illegal" did you not understand?
No there hasn't. Find someone that gives a cr@p what you think and leave me alone.
There is no mention in Scripture of it being acceptable to use the Internet - you'd better stop.
Christians would understand the concept of Christian liberty. The fact that you made the above snarky statement demonstrates that you're either knowingly or unkowingly using false arguments
Either both our arguments are false or neither are, as they're completely parallel in structure.
The Bible admonishes the true believer to NOT get intoxicated.
Using ANY substance.
Nonresponsive, and clearly doesn't support your claimed distinction between substances.
Could you be yet another in the little army of trolls posing on FR as "conservatives" or "professing Christians" who actually are pushing a globalist agenda ?
I'm not. Could you be yet another in the little army of nanny-statists who quickly stoop to personal smears when they run out of arguments?
Making recreational intoxication illegal is not a "nanny-state".
Sure it is - you're coercing people for their own (supposed) spiritual good.
It's not a personal smear when I point out that your arguments are unscriptural.
It's a personal smear when you suggest I'm 'yet another in the little army of trolls posing on FR as "conservatives" or "professing Christians" who actually are pushing a globalist agenda.'
When alcohol or another drug is illegal, it's typically used for intoxication - no distinction there.
Wrong, wine or beer with a meal is not pursuing intoxication.
Which part of "When alcohol is illegal" did you not understand?
Alcohol and intoxicating recreational drugs are two different things.
So you keep claiming, with no sound arguments in support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.