Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

928

(post is archived)

[–] • 0 pt

Let's hope this procedural ruling holds back the commies until their majority can be voted out with the help of voter integrity states: "this ruling essentially defeats HR1, the ProAct, and much of what is included in the current “infrastructure” bill. "

[–] • 0 pt

All these Democrats talk good games. They all vote as one block. Remember audits are coming when they find out they cheated to majority this could come back to bite them. Republicans will find themselves in control of house and senate. They will be pushing agendas of their own.

[–] • 0 pt

good night, help the first time it was put the fucking letter community in the God damn place black people too

[–] • 0 pt

I've asked before, got no reply, so here it is again:

What do the Dems need to abolish the filibuster? 51 (with #HeelsUp) or 60 votes.

Given that they are pressuring Manchin and Sinema HARD for their votes, I'm assuming they only need 50 Senators. If true, why the hell would the Senate allow a rule that 50 people can change rules that require 60 votes to pass. (Does my comment make sense?) It just seems absurd to me.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt
  1. They need 51 to change senate rules. Manchin is currently the most powerful senator.
[–] • 0 pt

The parliamentarian is an advisory role only. They don't make rulings and nothing they recommend is binding. Any source suggesting otherwise are ying their ass off. The democrats are using the parlementarian as a scale goat because they don't want to keep campaign promises.

If they wanted a different "ruling" the presiding Senate head (Harris if she's present, or the Senate majority leader if Harris isn't present) can remove the current parlamentarian and replace her.