Liberal Forum

golfboy » 21 May 2024, 5:33 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 5:33 pm

Your statement was that 51 votes were ALWAYS required to pass a bill in the Senate.   Period.
Low IQ

What specifically is the argument between those two? Sounds like they're both saying the same thing, in case of a 50/50 vote in the Senate the VP cast for the deciding vote to break the tie.

Where are they going off the rails here? 
 
 

maineman » 21 May 2024, 5:41 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 5:41 pm

I never said that.  I said that 51 votes were required when they all were present.  and YOU THEN said, 

"yes *******, fifty votes IS all that is needed to pass a bill in the senate when all senators are present and voting".  That is FALSE.   As I have shown you countless times.  But, like @Beekeeper  you are terminally stupid and terminally stubborn.

You've admitted in this thread that you added "when all Senators were present and voting"  AFTER I embarrassed you with the truth that bills can pass the senate with fewer votes. 

Why contradict your own statements?   
Were you lying then, or are you lying now?
 

Warcok » 21 May 2024, 5:44 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 5:44 pm

What specifically is the argument between those two? Sounds like they're both saying the same thing, in case of a 50/50 vote in the Senate the VP cast for the deciding vote to break the tie.

Where are they going off the rails here?

Because a bill can pass the Senate with fewer than 51 votes.   If only 99 Senators are there, it can pass with 50, and this has happened in the past. 
Mainbitch incorrectly claimed it ALWAYS required 51 votes to pass a bill.   

 

golfboy » 21 May 2024, 5:49 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 5:49 pm

You've admitted in this thread that you added "when all Senators were present and voting"  AFTER I embarrassed you with the truth that bills can pass the senate with fewer votes. 

Why contradict your own statements?   
Were you lying then, or are you lying now?

I "admitted" nothing of the kind.  I added "when all senators are present and voting" solely for the purpose of putting us both on the same page and eliminating the variables.  and after I did you said,

'' YES *******.. FIFTY VOTES IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO PASS A BILL WHEN ALL SENATORS ARE PRESENT AND VOTING"  

That is as wrong today as it was the day you first wrote it.

I have known that bills can pass the senate with as few as 26 votes ever since ninth grade civics.

golfboy » 21 May 2024, 5:51 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 5:51 pm

Because a bill can pass the Senate with fewer than 51 votes.   If only 99 Senators are there, it can pass with 50, and this has happened in the past. 
Mainbitch incorrectly claimed it ALWAYS required 51 votes to pass a bill.

wrong...you said that fifty were all that was needed if all 100 were present.

maineman » 21 May 2024, 6:32 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 6:32 pm

wrong...you said that fifty were all that was needed if all 100 were present.

lol.  Liar. 
Why did you change your statement, adding "when all Senators are present and voting"?
 

maineman » 21 May 2024, 6:28 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 6:28 pm

I "admitted" nothing of the kind.  I added "when all senators are present and voting" solely for the purpose of putting us both on the same page and eliminating the variables.  and after I did you said,

And there is the admission, yet again.
 

golfboy » 21 May 2024, 6:42 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 6:42 pm

And there is the admission, yet again.

Again,,, it is not an admission.  YOU have yet to admit that your statement about fifty votes was is and will forever be wrong.

golfboy » 21 May 2024, 6:41 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 6:41 pm

lol.  Liar. 
Why did you change your statement, adding "when all Senators are present and voting"?

to put us both on the same page.

why did you say, 

"YES *******.  FIFTY VOTES IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO PASS A BILL IN THE SENATE WHEN ALL SENATORS ARE PRESENT AND VOTING"????

 
 

maineman » 21 May 2024, 7:02 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 7:02 pm

to put us both on the same page.

why did you say, 

"YES *******.  FIFTY VOTES IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO PASS A BILL IN THE SENATE WHEN ALL SENATORS ARE PRESENT AND VOTING"????

Every time mainbitch gets his *** handed to him in public, he starts the whole **** over. 
Every. ****. Time. 

This is why you'll always be my bitch.
 

maineman » 21 May 2024, 7:00 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 7:00 pm

Again,,, it is not an admission.  YOU have yet to admit that your statement about fifty votes was is and will forever be wrong.

Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
 
 

golfboy » 21 May 2024, 7:39 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 7:39 pm

Are you lying now, or were you lying then?

I never lie.  YOU have yet to admit that your statement, "YES *******, FIFTY VOTES IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO PASS A BILL IN THE SENATE WHEN ALL SENATORS ARE PRESENT AND VOTING"  is dead wrong, and has been for years.

maineman » 21 May 2024, 7:55 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 7:55 pm

I never lie.  YOU have yet to admit that your statement, "YES *******, FIFTY VOTES IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO PASS A BILL IN THE SENATE WHEN ALL SENATORS ARE PRESENT AND VOTING"  is dead wrong, and has been for years.

Either you lied when you said you didn't change your statement, or you lied when you said you did.
Botch cannot be true.
 

golfboy » 21 May 2024, 8:05 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 8:05 pm

Either you lied when you said you didn't change your statement, or you lied when you said you did.
Botch cannot be true.

I changed my statement... but I did not change it for the reason that you claimed.  I changed it simply to put us both on the same page so that we would not be talking about apples and oranges.

And, again... the part you always avoid talking about is your response AFTER we were both on the same page:

"YES *******, FIFTY VOTES IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO PASS A BILL IN THE SENATE WHEN ALL SENATORS ARE PRESENT AND VOTING"

That's you... AFTER I put us on the same page.

AND IT IS WRONG.

maineman » 21 May 2024, 8:13 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 8:13 pm

I changed my statement..

Just as I said. 
So you lied when you said you didn't change it. 
 

golfboy » 21 May 2024, 8:15 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 8:15 pm

Just as I said. 
So you lied when you said you didn't change it.

I never said I didn't change it.  I explained why I did change it.  I expanded it to ensure we both were talking about a full senate.  As I have said, for years, I have known that a bill can pass the senate with as few as 26 votes and have known that since I was in the ninth grade.

You cannot explain the lack of veracity about your statement that followed.

Because you know you are wrong and you are too stupid and stubborn to admit it.

maineman » 21 May 2024, 3:42 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 3:42 pm

warcock was wrong, of course.

you knew that, didn't you?

He did it a lot as Illinois state senator 

maineman » 21 May 2024, 8:23 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 8:23 pm

I never said I didn't change it. 

Liar

maineman

I didn't change anything.

 

golfboy » 21 May 2024, 8:27 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 8:27 pm

Liar

I didn't change anything. I merely amplified and clarified what I had been saying.

When will yu own your error in your "yes *******" statement.?

BuckNaked » 21 May 2024, 8:26 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2024, 8:26 pm

He did it a lot as Illinois state senator

but never as a US Senator