When did they change the rules? I thought we needed 51 votes - not 60

[UpInArms]

Why do we need 60 votes to "pass" the Senate? Did something change and I was asleep? I thought that the VP came in if there was a 50-50 tie and voted to make it 51-50.

What the hell is going on?

(sorry if this is a stupid post, but I just don't "get it")

[FiveGoodMen]

1. The repukes threatened to threaten to inconvenience them

As in, "We'll filibuster ... well not really, but we'll say we're gonna, and we know that you Dems find that sort of thing intolerable."

[UpInArms]

3. thank you - I thought that I had lost my mind. Being confused

is how I spend the greater part of my days lately.

I am grateful that somehow in the dark of night, this piece of confusion did not become writ.

[timeforpeace]

11. Worked the same way when the Repukes had the majority. Did you mind it then?

[UpInArms]

13. yes, I did - mind it then

iirc - the r's said that there could be no filibuster - they would go "nuclear" and I never could understand why they couldn't just vote of bills as they came through

....

what were you thinking then?

[LakeSamish706]

2. Ever since Harry Reid has been leader of the Senate, it would seem that we

(according to his interpretation) have needed 60 votes. What a crock of shit, and did I mention spineless on his part?

[UpInArms]

4. perhaps we should send harry some pictures of what he is missing?

[Diane R]

5. I've wondered the very same thing. Republicans dominate when they have 55 ... we need 60+.

[UpInArms]

8. thanks! I thought I'd lost my mind.

:hi:

[Better Believe It]

9. Republicans really needed 51. Democrats may need 70 or more since

20 Senators could be moderate "centrists" who are opposed to a "liberal agenda" and might vote with Republicans.

30 Democratic Senators just voted against an amendment to permit the importation of Canadian drugs.

So maybe we really need 80 Democratic Senators to accomplish anything important .... well .... perhaps we actually need 100 Democratic Senators.

And 435 Democrats in the House.

That's the ticket!

[Dr.Phool]

6. 60 to stop debate.

It's a filibuster without the yakking.

[UpInArms]

7. and that means - what?

so they can yak - let them yak - they will sound STOOPID

and the world will know them for STOOPID

so vote and take the 51 and let the a**holes moan

[tomm2thumbs]

10. the 'threat' of filibuster - the threat is wasting too much time anyway

if they are going to do it - let them do it- they can literally shut down the Senate for a month - they've done it by not letting this process move forward for the last months as it is - it is like they've been shut down anyway - the people will finally let their anger be heard and deal with these idiots when things stop happening, but the threat is becoming this 'boogeyman' that no one will ever see for what it is unless they simply allow it

and then, they need to be prepared for the same to happen to their side if the president is a Republican way down the line in the future

[walldude]

12. No new rules.. Repukes need 51 Dems need 60.

Same as it ever was :rofl: