Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

no debate for you!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
    spouting rubbish as usual. try again.

    "In the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents."

    As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was about to execute the "nuclear option" -- changing the chamber’s rules to eliminate a 60-vote supermajority for executive nominations -- his office released a graphic designed to show how Senate Republicans had used filibusters to target a disproportionate number of President Barack Obama’s nominees.

    The graphic -- which quickly went viral among Democrats using social media -- showed a pie chart with the following caption. "In the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents."

    Reid’s graphic said that "in the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents."

    The figures are solidly sourced to the Congressional Research Service, but the graphic’s wording was wrong -- an error that Reid’s office acknowledged after we contacted them, and for which they released a corrected version of the graphic. Meanwhile, the question of how many pre-Obama presidents should be included is a bit murkier. The CRS report doesn’t incorporate data prior to 1949, but there’s evidence that blocked nominations were rare to nonexistent before that.

    Since the revised numbers actually increase the accuracy of Reid's underlying point -- that blockages under Obama have accounted for a disproportionate share of those undertaken in United States history -- we rate the claim Mostly True.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ees-have-been/
    Ah, the classic "I've been beclowned so let's switch topics" gambit.

    As for Reid's math, which Congrats, got only 2 pinocchios here...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ered-nominees/

    How many of those 86 blocks under "all other presidents" were really just done to Bush?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
      Ah, the classic "I've been beclowned so let's switch topics" gambit.

      As for Reid's math, which Congrats, got only 2 pinocchios here...

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ered-nominees/

      How many of those 86 blocks under "all other presidents" were really just done to Bush?
      who is switching topics? if you want to lower the number because they got nominated in the end, while ignoring the wasted time in congress, go ahead. what is your definition of "blocked?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
        who is switching topics? if you want to lower the number because they got nominated in the end, while ignoring the wasted time in congress, go ahead. what is your definition of "blocked?
        Ahhh, we're back to worrying about the "Why Pass a Budget?" Senate's precious time.

        Comment


        • #34
          Liberals only complain with "blocking" when their democrats are in the WH and have a majority. Otherwise, it's just good politics.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
            It's true the liberal media running the debates is a joke. Repubs are smart to do this if they want to try and win.
            The "liberal media" had nothing to do with this. These idiots made just as big a fools of themselves on the Fox debates as they did on any other network.

            It is a smart move I will agree with you on that. The less time they spend answering tough questions the better off they will be.

            This will hurt Rand Paul but it will mostly hurt other Republicans that will not be able to raise lots of money without the exposure of the debates like Santorium and Huckaby. The Republican establishment will do everything they can to get the nomination to Bush and NOT to Paul. They do not like Paul and this will hurt his chances.
            Last edited by Guess Who; 05-14-2014, 11:42 PM.

            Comment

            Working...
            X