Replies

I stole this from the other thread, as the “cerebrally-challenged” need to read this....

1. Ted voted NO on cloture. As long as cloture had not passed, the bill would have never been brought to the floor for a vote. Therefore, Ted did not want this bill to brought to the floor without an important amendment to it that he wanted to introduce but was not allowed to introduce because McConnell cut him off. That amendment would have changed the character of the Bill by requiring ‘affirmative approval’ of the Bill. But most Senators will not APPROVE but will gladly DISAPPROVE so that they can be safe from the wrath of their constituents.

So in the mind of a US Senator, the simple view is:

Ted’s Bill Version: APPROVE BILL <— BAD
McConnell’s Bill Version: DISAPPROVE BILL <— GOOD

2. McConnell allowed the bill to offer Senators a chance to disapprove OBAMA’S IRAN DEAL. Why is this bad? Because Obama can veto a bill that sends a disapproval OF HIS PLALN, The veto would require 2/3’s of Congress to vote to override his veto. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Then, because Congress cannot pass a bill to disapprove HIS DEAL, Obama gives himself license to go forward with his deal. This is why Obama supported McConnell’s version of the bill. It was actually Corker’s bill but Corker is McConnell’s toadie.

3. Ted’s version of the Bill would require the Senate to affirmatively approve the deal. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Why is this NOT GOING TO HAPPEN version good? Because it means that the Senate would never approve the deal and the Constitution requires 2/3’s of the Senate to approve a Treaty. So Ted’s version was designed to kill Obama’s deal.

14 posted on 5/8/2015, 9:50:00 AM by Hostage (ARTICLE V)