On 11/5/2014 7:52 PM, Roger wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 7:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 6:30 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 6:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

With the mid-term election over there will be many new faces ... both
Republican and Democrats ... taking seats in Congress next year.

Only problem is that those in the leadership positions remain. They
just swap jobs in the Senate. Mitch McConnell is pretty much
guarantied
the Senate Majority Leader position with Harry Reid pretty much
guarantied the Minority Leader position.

The House stays as it is most likely ... John Boehner as Speaker and
Nancy Pelosi as minority leader.

If I am not mistaken both houses of Congress must elect them to these
positions, although it is really just a formality.

It might be interesting for them *not* to hold those positions this
time
around. Make Congress as clean and new as possible. Their influences
represent the past, not necessarily the future.


I think the simple act of allowing bills to come to the floor will
change a lot. Many of the 380 plus bills Harry Reid and his "party of
NO" would not let come to the floor were bipartizan bills sent up from
the house. If I am correct, you would only need 8 dems to vote on
one of
those bills with the republicans and a veto could be overridden. Do I
have my numbers right, 60 votes, right?


That's my understanding to make a vote veto proof.




If all the members of the US Senate are present, it takes 67 of them
or a two thirds majority to override a presidential veto. The
percentage in the US House is the same, a two thirds majority of the
members present when the boat is taken.


Is that an imaginary boat?

Oh, that changes everything.. Now the republicans will have to get 13
votes from the party of no, not as easy but do-able if they compromise
and force them to actually vote on something..