WASHINGTON -- Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday that if Republicans don't schedule a confirmation vote soon for U.S. attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch, he'll do it himself.

"I know parliamentary procedure around here and we’re going to put up with this for a little while longer, but not much," Reid said in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. "Absolutely we can force votes. If we don’t get something done soon, I will force a vote."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/16...81442.html

To be precise, he can call for a vote but he can't force a vote.

To be precise someone needs to tell this has been that elections have consequenes, and to take a seat and shut his bloodied pie-hole.

This effing hypocrite didn't allow votes for YEARS, now he has the nerve to whine cause he's not getting his way. Tough schit, tough guy. Why don't you go spend some more time chasing elderly cowboys around?

(04-17-2015 12:59 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  This effing hypocrite didn't allow votes for YEARS, now he has the nerve to whine cause he's not getting his way.

I don't disagree with your description of Reid, or his motives. But it's fair to point out that he didn't (IIRC) prevent votes on Cabinet-level nominations.

(04-17-2015 03:06 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 12:59 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  This effing hypocrite didn't allow votes for YEARS, now he has the nerve to whine cause he's not getting his way.

I don't disagree with your description of Reid, or his motives. But it's fair to point out that he didn't (IIRC) prevent votes on Cabinet-level nominations.

I was wondering the same thing, when was he particularly obstructionist on these sorts of votes?

Harry can dish it out, but he can't take it. He's a loser.

Considering his caucus are the ones holding up the vote, I find it entirely hypocritical of 'Dingy' Harry to be throwing shade on anyone.

Harry was the king of sitting on legislation in the senate that protected Senators from having to cast votes and protected Obama from getting out his veto pen. He no longer holds those keys - he can go suck eggs until his retirement. Screw him.

I have no problem with them holding up the vote. She absolutely should bot be AG if she has no problem with O's administration circumventing laws and rhe constitution.

Harry can demand all he wants, it BS that he postures like this after all the legislature that was held up under his watch.

(04-17-2015 05:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 03:06 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 12:59 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  This effing hypocrite didn't allow votes for YEARS, now he has the nerve to whine cause he's not getting his way.

I don't disagree with your description of Reid, or his motives. But it's fair to point out that he didn't (IIRC) prevent votes on Cabinet-level nominations.

I was wondering the same thing, when was he particularly obstructionist on these sorts of votes?

I'm wondering a similar thing. When did I specify what vote he was a complete asshat about?

You're really becoming comical.

(04-18-2015 02:16 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 05:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 03:06 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 12:59 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  This effing hypocrite didn't allow votes for YEARS, now he has the nerve to whine cause he's not getting his way.

I don't disagree with your description of Reid, or his motives. But it's fair to point out that he didn't (IIRC) prevent votes on Cabinet-level nominations.

I was wondering the same thing, when was he particularly obstructionist on these sorts of votes?

I'm wondering a similar thing. When did I specify what vote he was a complete asshat about?

You're really becoming comical.

You didn't outright state it, you implied it by your claim he was a hypocrite for doing this in response to the OP. I don't understand your confusion here, you can argue that he is being hypocritical due to an overall history of being obstructionist while others can point out that for this type of vote, he never has been. To point out that under similar votes, Reid did not obstruct votes on nominations, simply addresses your claim that he is a hypocrite. Doesn't mean you can't argue he's an obstructionist, but you'd might want to point out a vote type that he has a history of being obstructionist on with evidence he's complaining about obstruction in a similar type of vote.

(04-18-2015 03:19 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 02:16 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 05:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 03:06 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 12:59 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  This effing hypocrite didn't allow votes for YEARS, now he has the nerve to whine cause he's not getting his way.

I don't disagree with your description of Reid, or his motives. But it's fair to point out that he didn't (IIRC) prevent votes on Cabinet-level nominations.

I was wondering the same thing, when was he particularly obstructionist on these sorts of votes?

I'm wondering a similar thing. When did I specify what vote he was a complete asshat about?

You're really becoming comical.

You didn't outright state it, you implied it by your claim he was a hypocrite for doing this in response to the OP. I don't understand your confusion here, you can argue that he is being hypocritical due to an overall history of being obstructionist while others can point out that for this type of vote, he never has been. To point out that under similar votes, Reid did not obstruct votes on nominations, simply addresses your claim that he is a hypocrite. Doesn't mean you can't argue he's an obstructionist, but you'd might want to point out a vote type that he has a history of being obstructionist on with evidence he's complaining about obstruction in a similar type of vote.

Wow! That's a whole lot of words to say essentially nothing. Congrats!

Well I too thought it went without a need to explain it, but you asked so there you go.

Reid and Pelosi started this partisan crap. Let them suffer through the inevitable backlash when they don't have the majority.

(04-18-2015 05:27 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Reid and Pelosi started this partisan crap. Let them suffer through the inevitable backlash when they don't have the majority.

What do you consider the beginning of this 'partisan crap'?

I knew that would get a response. I would say the ante was upped greatly when Obamacare was pushed through with reconciliation. It has always been there, but that was the moment the game changed.

Of course Reid didn't obstruct any cabinet nominations. Why would he? His ideological homeboy was doing the nominating.

Just anything a Republican House sent over.

Don't under estimate Reid. He may use his NSA information to blackmail enough Republicans to force a vote.

(04-18-2015 06:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Of course Reid didn't obstruct any cabinet nominations. Why would he? His ideological homeboy was doing the nominating.

Just anything a Republican House sent over.

Of course. This. I didn't think it warranted needing to be pointed out, but thanks for doing it anyway. Maybe some will catch up... Maybe.