By RUDY TAKALA (@RUDYTAKALA) 9/5/15 4:38 PM
ShareTweetRedditDiggMailPrintMore
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., will try to prevent the Senate from voting on President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.
In a statement issued on Saturday, Reid said that Democrats would attempt to use the filibuster to prevent the Senate from holding even a symbolic vote on the issue, which would likely result in an embarrassing outcome for Democrats. "I recently informed Senator McConnell that after a period of robust debate, Democrats would be happy to proceed straight to a final passage vote," Reid said in the statement, suggesting "robust debate" was a coy way of saying that the debate will not end unless Republicans can muster 60 votes to do so.
Under the terms of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act passed earlier this year, the Senate has the option of voting in favor of the deal, voting against it or taking no action at all. If the Senate were to vote against the deal, President Obama would still be able to veto the action. At least 67 votes would be required to override such a veto.
Presently, Democrats have at least 38 votes in favor of the deal. Just three Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., have said they would join Republicans in voting against it. If Republicans vote in unison, that means at least 57 senators would vote against the deal. While that would be short of the 67 required to override a veto, it would be enough to humiliate the administration.
KHH1 wrote:
By RUDY TAKALA (@RUDYTAKALA) 9/5/15 4:38 PM
ShareTweetRedditDiggMailPrintMore
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., will try to prevent the Senate from voting on President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.
In a statement issued on Saturday, Reid said that Democrats would attempt to use the filibuster to prevent the Senate from holding even a symbolic vote on the issue, which would likely result in an embarrassing outcome for Democrats. "I recently informed Senator McConnell that after a period of robust debate, Democrats would be happy to proceed straight to a final passage vote," Reid said in the statement, suggesting "robust debate" was a coy way of saying that the debate will not end unless Republicans can muster 60 votes to do so.
Under the terms of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act passed earlier this year, the Senate has the option of voting in favor of the deal, voting against it or taking no action at all. If the Senate were to vote against the deal, President Obama would still be able to veto the action. At least 67 votes would be required to override such a veto.
Presently, Democrats have at least 38 votes in favor of the deal. Just three Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., have said they would join Republicans in voting against it. If Republicans vote in unison, that means at least 57 senators would vote against the deal. While that would be short of the 67 required to override a veto, it would be enough to humiliate the administration.
By RUDY TAKALA (@RUDYTAKALA) 9/5/15 4:38 PM br S... (
show quote)
"SOMEONE"! COMMIT DUNGEY HARRY REID TO AN ASYLUM......QUICKLY!....{ WHAT A "P.O.S.! "}
It's a waste of time.
What Congress does will change nothing.
China, France,Germany,Britain and Russia have already given the deal a pass.
We have no control over Iran's already released assets.
America Can't Lead When We Elect A President That Doesn't Know How
...Or Cares
karpenter wrote:
America Can't Lead When We Elect A President That Doesn't Know How
...Or Cares
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Ronald Hatt wrote:
"SOMEONE"! COMMIT DUNGEY HARRY REID TO AN ASYLUM......QUICKLY!....{ WHAT A "P.O.S.! "}
I thought that Republicans were in the majority. How does the head of the minority party prevent a vote?
Reid has so much money he thins he should rue the country
at41 wrote:
I thought that Republicans were in the majority. How does the head of the minority party prevent a vote?
By "threatening" the Libturds, in the Congress!
{& who knows "what" dirt he has on the moderate/liberal Conservatives, in Congress}......America's current politicians, on both sides {the majority of them}, are impeding America's progress, at solving problems!
This P.O.S. Reid, has done as much harm to America, as "BATH HOUSE BARRY", & his band of miscreant Muslim, "closet homo's"!................................ :thumbdown:
KHH1 wrote:
By RUDY TAKALA (@RUDYTAKALA) 9/5/15 4:38 PM
ShareTweetRedditDiggMailPrintMore
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., will try to prevent the Senate from voting on President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.
In a statement issued on Saturday, Reid said that Democrats would attempt to use the filibuster to prevent the Senate from holding even a symbolic vote on the issue, which would likely result in an embarrassing outcome for Democrats. "I recently informed Senator McConnell that after a period of robust debate, Democrats would be happy to proceed straight to a final passage vote," Reid said in the statement, suggesting "robust debate" was a coy way of saying that the debate will not end unless Republicans can muster 60 votes to do so.
Under the terms of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act passed earlier this year, the Senate has the option of voting in favor of the deal, voting against it or taking no action at all. If the Senate were to vote against the deal, President Obama would still be able to veto the action. At least 67 votes would be required to override such a veto.
Presently, Democrats have at least 38 votes in favor of the deal. Just three Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., have said they would join Republicans in voting against it. If Republicans vote in unison, that means at least 57 senators would vote against the deal. While that would be short of the 67 required to override a veto, it would be enough to humiliate the administration.
By RUDY TAKALA (@RUDYTAKALA) 9/5/15 4:38 PM br S... (
show quote)
You didn't expect Reid to do anything good for the country, did you?
He needs to stay to just stay home .
karpenter wrote:
America Can't Lead When We Elect A President That Doesn't Know How
...Or Cares
What President . We don't have one .
Ronald Hatt wrote:
khh1 = delusional!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
DamnYANKEE wrote:
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
:lol: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
So sad for the RIGHT that the DEMS are still calling the shots after that midterm victory of yours....just admit it...Dems are smarter than the GOP....Obama is getting HIS agenda we voted for him to....completed...he is who WE voted for to lead the country and his approval rating from US is right around 85-90%........so moan and whine all you like....things look great from my vantage point..... :thumbup:
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.