Originally Posted by
Meadmaker
There's no reason to block a vote on something that won't pass. You only block votes on something that will pass.
No, you don't. Sometimes you block a vote because you don't want to take the fall for voting against it.
Sometimes you block a vote because you figure the negative spin from blocking it will be less harmful to your objectives than the negative spin from voting against it.
This is the second time I've pointed this out. Will you continue to ignore it?
Or do I have to ask you, who apparently knows so much about which votes will pass and which will not, are you a party whip? Have you counted noses on these votes? Are you privy to the councils of the legislators?
Or are you presenting as fact what is actually just your unsupported supposition?
I'm actually a little disappointed. Normally you make pretty intelligent arguments. Why have you decided to reduce what is obviously a complex question to such an oversimplified and unsupported answer?