I have been predicting this for a very long time

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
So, you're with the thinking that it was the senate, that proposed the bill and blocked their own bill? Did you look at the vote? It was strictly a party-line vote. A vote on whether a born baby, a person, gets to live or die. This should be a no-brainer; but for democrats they have to mull over whether they should have the power to butcher babies. Really? What sort of barbaric people have they become?
Did you look at the vote? It wasn't a strict party-line vote as 3 Ds (Casey, Jones, Manchin) voted for cloture along with 50 Rs, 44 Ds voted not to end debate, and 3 Rs (Cramer, Murkowski, Scott) didn't vote one way or the other.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Is it your opinion that the reason they voted against cloture was because they wanted to continue debate? Are they still debating it?

It seems clear to me that debate on the subject was not what they were seeking. I have not heard of a massive amounts of amendments offered on the bill to make it more clear, have you?
Yeah, that is my opinion, specifically is this law even necessary. 1USC8 already states that once outside the mother the subject is born and entitled to protection of law.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
It's pretty much only for cloture. It's the modern filibuster - don't vote to end debate. It's much easier on the bladder than an actual filibuster.



And people like Ken are clearly willing to accept the lie that the vote was not about the substance of the bill but rather the ability to continue debate. People who choose to not believe it will continue to not believe it. The way to make that point clear is to end the supermajority requirement to invoke cloture.

They will not do that, because it takes away their power when they are back in the minority.



You: [preaching]
Me: [choir]
No, that is what cloture is about you ****ing idiot.

As to PsyOps and you being the choir, don't we pull the plug or yank feeding tubes for persons that are alive all the time. So be consistent or STFU.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Did you look at the vote? It wasn't a strict party-line vote as 3 Ds (Casey, Jones, Manchin) voted for cloture along with 50 Rs, 44 Ds voted not to end debate, and 3 Rs (Cramer, Murkowski, Scott) didn't vote one way or the other.

We don't know why the 3 abstainers abstained. Maybe they weren't present when the vote occurred. But, I'm not going to split hairs over onesy-twosies... this was a clear party-line vote where democrats have made it clear they do not want to make it illegal to murder a baby. You're not even debating that aspect of this; you're just stuck senate procedure which is pointless to the larger issue at hand. It should have been 100% for making this form of butchery illegal. I can't even believe it's something that requires a law banning it.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
No, that is what cloture is about you ****ing idiot.

As to PsyOps and you being the choir, don't we pull the plug or yank feeding tubes for persons that are alive all the time. So be consistent or STFU.

I didn't mean to like your post. But since you've decided to get personal... you win. :boo:
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
We don't know why the 3 abstainers abstained. Maybe they weren't present when the vote occurred. But, I'm not going to split hairs over onesy-twosies... this was a clear party-line vote where democrats have made it clear they do not want to make it illegal to murder a baby. You're not even debating that aspect of this; you're just stuck senate procedure which is pointless to the larger issue at hand. It should have been 100% for making this form of butchery illegal. I can't even believe it's something that requires a law banning it.
No, that is the entire point, this vote was about the process and not the merits of the bill. And is this law needed as the law already says that once born-alive, they are protected by the laws already on the books.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Yeah, that is my opinion,

So, who is still debating it? What are the amendments being offered, and by whom, to make it more clear?

... specifically is this law even necessary. 1USC8 already states that once outside the mother the subject is born and entitled to protection of law.

It seems necessary in that the states are slowly offering up post-birth abortion laws.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
No, that is what cloture is about you ****ing idiot.

So, Republicans merely wanted to continue debate and not end Obamacare, right?

NO! If you believe that voting against cloture is primarily done because people want to continue debate and NOT done to prevent voting on the actual law you really need to spend some time learning more about how the Senate works. :buddies:

As to PsyOps and you being the choir, don't we pull the plug or yank feeding tubes for persons that are alive all the time. So be consistent or STFU.

As a general rule, that is done either out of the explicit desire of the person (usually done by a "living will"), or, when the medical community has explained to the family that the life is no longer viable for becoming a conscious person again AND someone in the family has explicit information from the person that they have stated they would not want to be kept alive like that.

I have never once heard it done because the life is inconvenient to a single family member, let alone the millions of times per year that is done to a viable human baby, with absolutely no reason to believe the baby has chosen to end their life via a living will.

But, you know, perception and all.....
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
So, Republicans merely wanted to continue debate and not end Obamacare, right?

NO! If you believe that voting against cloture is primarily done because people want to continue debate and NOT done to prevent voting on the actual law you really need to spend some time learning more about how the Senate works. :buddies:
In this instance the bill had very little action, never sent to a committee, never discussed at all apparently.

02/25/2019Cloture on the motion to proceed not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 53 - 44. Record Vote Number: 27. (CR S1422)
Action By: Senate
02/25/2019Motion to proceed to measure considered in Senate. (CR S1414)
Action By: Senate
02/14/2019Cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the consideration of measure presented in Senate. (CR S1364)
Action By: Senate
02/14/2019Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate. (CR S1364)
Action By: Senate
02/04/2019Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 17.
Action By: Senate
01/31/2019Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Action By: Senate



As a general rule, that is done either out of the explicit desire of the person (usually done by a "living will"), or, when the medical community has explained to the family that the life is no longer viable for becoming a conscious person again AND someone in the family has explicit information from the person that they have stated they would not want to be kept alive like that.

I have never once heard it done because the life is inconvenient to a single family member, let alone the millions of times per year that is done to a viable human baby, with absolutely no reason to believe the baby has chosen to end their life via a living will.

But, you know, perception and all.....
What about Schivo (I think that was the case) were the husband wanted her dead (so he could get on with his life and the trust money) even though the parents wanted her to remain under care hoping for recovery. You don't remember that?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
In this instance the bill had very little action, never sent to a committee, never discussed at all apparently.

02/25/2019Cloture on the motion to proceed not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 53 - 44. Record Vote Number: 27. (CR S1422)
Action By: Senate
02/25/2019Motion to proceed to measure considered in Senate. (CR S1414)
Action By: Senate
02/14/2019Cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the consideration of measure presented in Senate. (CR S1364)
Action By: Senate
02/14/2019Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate. (CR S1364)
Action By: Senate
02/04/2019Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 17.
Action By: Senate
01/31/2019Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Action By: Senate

Still looking for who is debating it or offering amendments to make it a better bill. You know, 'cuz they're all behind it, just wanted to keep debating it and all.

Surely, if you believe that (because you don't understand how the Senate works) you would be able to back up that assertion with all the Democrats who voted against cloture offering their useful amendments, right?

What about Schivo (I think that was the case) were the husband wanted her dead (so he could get on with his life and the trust money) even though the parents wanted her to remain under care hoping for recovery. You don't remember that?

I do. The doctors said that she was not conscious and never would be again, so the husband (the one who was legally allowed to make the decision) made the decision. The parents, who weren't paying for her care, wanted to keep her alive. Three people all said she told them she would want to have her life ended if she was ever in such a condition. Her biological family says they never heard that, but that is not proof she didn't say it to the three people who testified they heard her say it.

This is clearly a debatable case as to whether the right thing was done, even with the doctors' consistent opinions that she was not conscious in any meaningful way and never would be again.

But, even with that singular debatable case, it still is different from the baby who is born without a medical condition that would keep it from living and is then "aborted", which is what this bill was intending on stopping. EVEN that singular case, you have not shown how that is similar to a completely viable human who is killed or left to die for the sole reason that it is inconvenient to the mother.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Still looking for who is debating it or offering amendments to make it a better bill. You know, 'cuz they're all behind it, just wanted to keep debating it and all.

Surely, if you believe that (because you don't understand how the Senate works) you would be able to back up that assertion with all the Democrats who voted against cloture offering their useful amendments, right?
How the senate works, normally a bill follows a simple process,
  1. You have an idea,
  2. You write or revise a law,
  3. It gets assigned to committee,
  4. There is debate in committee and a vote to move it to the full body or let it die,
  5. If moved to the floor, more debate ensues,
  6. Debate is closed,
  7. A vote takes place.
I do. The doctors said that she was not conscious and never would be again, so the husband (the one who was legally allowed to make the decision) made the decision. The parents, who weren't paying for her care, wanted to keep her alive. Three people all said she told them she would want to have her life ended if she was ever in such a condition. Her biological family says they never heard that, but that is not proof she didn't say it to the three people who testified they heard her say it.

This is clearly a debatable case as to whether the right thing was done, even with the doctors' consistent opinions that she was not conscious in any meaningful way and never would be again.

But, even with that singular debatable case, it still is different from the baby who is born without a medical condition that would keep it from living and is then "aborted", which is what this bill was intending on stopping. EVEN that singular case, you have not shown how that is similar to a completely viable human who is killed or left to die for the sole reason that it is inconvenient to the mother.
So, if I understand you correctly you are saying that if a baby is born and the doctor says "whoa, this kid has massive problems", the mom says "kill it", you would be good with that? Can we get a vote, yes or no.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
How the senate works, normally a bill follows a simple process,
  1. You have an idea,
  2. You write or revise a law,
  3. It gets assigned to committee,
  4. There is debate in committee and a vote to move it to the full body or let it die,
  5. If moved to the floor, more debate ensues,
  6. Debate is closed,
  7. A vote takes place.
Yep, and in this case it was so simple no committee was assigned - because, why would you need to? - and debate never closed because the Democrats did not want the debate to end; except of course for the fact that they have no intention of debating it - they simply didn't want the law to go forward.

THAT is how the Senate works.

Remember when Harry Reid attacked a CNN reporter for asking him why he wouldn't let "some" of the government re-open when Republicans wouldn't end cloture to get a spending bill to Mr. Obama? He asked, rather crassly and crudely "why would we do want to do that?!" and then, explaining why he was so crude, crass, and callous "I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own."

See, as the Senate Majority Leader at the time, he understood that the Republicans were not voting for cloture on Reid's proposed spending bills not because they didn't want to fund parts, but because they didn't want to fund Obamacare. They didn't want debate, they wanted Obamacare to die.

That's how the Senate works.

So, if I understand you correctly you are saying that if a baby is born and the doctor says "whoa, this kid has massive problems", the mom says "kill it", you would be good with that? Can we get a vote, yes or no.

Maybe you understand, maybe you don't. If the baby is not now, and is likely to never be, conscious, I would vote for allowing the parents to euthanize the baby - my vote would be yes.

If mom wants to go to college and therefore the baby's "massive problems" are that it exists and she doesn't want it, then I would vote NO.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Yep, and in this case it was so simple no committee was assigned - because, why would you need to? - and debate never closed because the Democrats did not want the debate to end; except of course for the fact that they have no intention of debating it - they simply didn't want the law to go forward.

THAT is how the Senate works.

Remember when Harry Reid attacked a CNN reporter for asking him why he wouldn't let "some" of the government re-open when Republicans wouldn't end cloture to get a spending bill to Mr. Obama? He asked, rather crassly and crudely "why would we do want to do that?!" and then, explaining why he was so crude, crass, and callous "I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own."

See, as the Senate Majority Leader at the time, he understood that the Republicans were not voting for cloture on Reid's proposed spending bills not because they didn't want to fund parts, but because they didn't want to fund Obamacare. They didn't want debate, they wanted Obamacare to die.

That's how the Senate works.



Maybe you understand, maybe you don't. If the baby is not now, and is likely to never be, conscious, I would vote for allowing the parents to euthanize the baby - my vote would be yes.

If mom wants to go to college and therefore the baby's "massive problems" are that it exists and she doesn't want it, then I would vote NO.
I think I now understand you perfectly, as your words depict, you are okay with murder of the innocent because it would be expensive and inconvenient.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I think I now understand you perfectly, as your words depict, you are okay with murder of the innocent because it would be expensive and inconvenient.
I believe you think that's what I said, when that is not even close to what I said.

Still waiting for the list of Democrat (or Republican) Senators who are offering up amendments to keep the debate going.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
I believe you think that's what I said, when that is not even close to what I said.

Still waiting for the list of Democrat (or Republican) Senators who are offering up amendments to keep the debate going.
That is exactly what you said.

How can there be debate when not assigned to committee or open for debate? This Bill was more of a Resolution in how it proceeded. Show me where it was ever offered an opportunity for debate?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
That is exactly what you said.

No, "exactly what said" was, "If the baby is not now, and is likely to never be, conscious, I would vote for allowing the parents to euthanize the baby - my vote would be yes."

I never once said nor implied "expensive" or "inconvenient". If those are the "massive problems", then, no, that's not a reason to euthanize a baby. I even implicitly argued against the "inconvenient" part in the very next sentence.

How can there be debate when not assigned to committee or open for debate? This Bill was more of a Resolution in how it proceeded. Show me where it was ever offered an opportunity for debate?

It was offered on Feb 4, and voted on Feb 25.

What is the definition of "cloture"?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Actually, as provided above, S311 was introduced and read on 1/31 (no motion to proceed0, read a 2nd time on 2/4 and placed on the calendar (no motion to proceed), there was a request for cloture on 2/14 with no action on that motion indicated, and then finally on 2/25 there was a motion to proceed. This "debate" was more about insulting and bashing amongst the members and then another call for cloture which was put to the vote and failed. So there was only a brief period on 2/25 for any discussion at all.

Cloture is the end of debate.

As to what the vote on 2/25/2019 was actually about, this is how it is framed in the Congressional Record -
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the motion to proceed to S. 311, a bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion, shall be brought to a close?
Note that this vote had nothing to do with anything other than suspending debate.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Note that this vote had nothing to do with anything other than suspending debate.
So, the debate is not ended.

Given the debate is not ended, what amendments are any democrats putting to the bill to make it more clear or better in any way? Don't tell me that it's not up for amendments, because it is - it is still in debate. Just because they are not currently VOTING on amendments does not mean there are not amendments able to be written.

What democrat is championing the cause, saying, "great idea, but let's make it more clear in this way"?

What? How could it be none? I thought they were ok with the bill, just that it wasn't clear?!
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
So, the debate is not ended.

Given the debate is not ended, what amendments are any democrats putting to the bill to make it more clear or better in any way? Don't tell me that it's not up for amendments, because it is - it is still in debate. Just because they are not currently VOTING on amendments does not mean there are not amendments able to be written.

What democrat is championing the cause, saying, "great idea, but let's make it more clear in this way"?

What? How could it be none? I thought they were ok with the bill, just that it wasn't clear?!
When the motion to proceed was requested by Mr. Sasse, he requested "unanimous consent" and it was ordered. Unanimous Consent is a procedure to limit the debate and prevent amendments from being offered from the floor. There may well be amendments out there, but how the leadership allows the matters to be brought to the floor may prevent them from being offered.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
When the motion to proceed was requested by Mr. Sasse, he requested "unanimous consent" and it was ordered. Unanimous Consent is a procedure to limit the debate and prevent amendments from being offered from the floor. There may well be amendments out there, but how the leadership allows the matters to be brought to the floor may prevent them from being offered.
Do you seriously believe that the reason the Democrats voted against cloture was to make the bill better? Or, to kill the bill....
 
Top