12 ms·

The votes in both the house and the senate were almost entirely along party lines. Every republican in the senate that voted, voted for this act and every democ

The votes in both the house and the senate were almost entirely along party lines. Every republican in the senate that voted, voted for this act and every democrat in the senate that voted, voted against this act.

bipvanwinkle 10y ago
Although this is mostly true, it's not entirely true (at least in the house).
- atomi 10y ago
  https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00094#position https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...
  - ComradeTaco 10y ago
    No, he's correct, about 7% of republicans in the house didn't vote for the bill.
    - sundaeofshock 10y ago
      And 0% of Democrats in the house voted for the bill. This bill is 100% owned by the GOP.
  - kej 10y ago
    15 House Republicans voted against it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml
    - macawfish 10y ago
      They're the ones who brand new congress needs to be courting
      - losteric 10y ago
        For reference/laziness: https://brandnewcongress.org/ https://brandnewcongress.org/
    - alexgaribay 10y ago
      I'm glad to see that my congressman is on the list of republicans who voted nay. I would like to think that my call to his office made a difference.
- ComradeTaco 10y ago
  You're correct and I edited my comment. I suspect that that may just be a tactic to save face in vulnerable districts rather than a sincere desire to oppose the bill.
  - saint_fiasco 10y ago
    That's a good point. Are the Republicans who voted against the bill relatively unpopular with their constituencies?
    - ComradeTaco 10y ago
      Hard won congressional seats will often sit out or sometimes even vote against their parties legislation but coordinate their votes inch a way that ensures that their parties legislation still passes. Say you have 54 democrats in the senate, and a democratic president 4 democrats that had difficult races can abstain or vote against the bill while 50 democrats can vote for it, with the vice president being the tiebreaker.
    - RightMillennial 10y ago
      As far as I know Justin Amash is well liked within his district.
  - hueving 10y ago
    >I suspect that that may just be a tactic to save face in vulnerable districts rather than a sincere desire to oppose the bill. And the only reason Democrats voted against it was a tactic to save face for their constituents back home. Why in the world would you think some politicians are magically sincere while others are not just by the little letter in parenthesis after their name? Hyper partisan people that think this way are the reason political discourse has gone to shit and everything turns into some childish red team vs blue team ideology. As you keep propagating this mindset, people on both sides keep turning up the volume on their echo chamber and we get the most partisan congress (on both sides) in a hundred years[1]. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/heres-why-president-obama-failed-to-bridge-the-partisan-divide-graphed/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/he...
- dannyobrien 10y ago
  In the House, 15 Republicans broke ranks to vote against the repeal. With five more votes, it would have failed. That's a very close vote. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/congress-sides-cable-and-telephone-industry https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/congress-sides-cable-a...
0xa 10y ago
The reality is more nuanced--the time to stop this legislation was by preventing it coming to vote in the senate. Typically the senate needs 60 votes to forcefully end debate[0], then merely majority to pass it. Once can disguise support for a bill by approving to end debate, then voting "Nay" given it will get the necessary 50 to be approved. For JS 34 [1] Mitch McConnell (R, KY) limited debate to 10 minutes--I'm unclear from the transcript exactly how this was allowed. Richard Blumenthal (D, CT) offered resistance to limiting debate, and Kamala Harris (D, CA) and Patrick Leahy (D, VT) requested the role be called several times as a delaying tactic, but the limiting of debate went through. Just prior to the vote, Brian Schatz (D, HI) offered some debate, but this is cosmetic given the known votes. My read there is little to be gained by trying to legislate implementation power that has been ceded to the executive branch and the various agencies that are run by appointment, and therefore a costly filibuster and fight was not worth the time, effort and political mud. [0] https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/577d2a5e-2b47-4045-95fa-a76398e41461.pdf https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/577d2a5e-2b47-4045-95fa-a7639... [1] https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/03/23/senate-section/article/S1942-4 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/03/23/sen...
- waqf 10y ago
  "forcibly", not "forcefully": http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/forceful.html http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/forceful.html
  - AlexB138 10y ago
    People don't seem to like this comment, but that is a great link. Browsing around the site, I found this list of common English language errors: http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html Really interesting. Thanks for sharing.
    - 3131s 10y ago
      Most of those are made up prescriptive guidelines, mixed in with some common misspellings. One grumpy person does not get to decide how the rest of us choose to use and evolve language. The "forceful" / "forcible" example is particularly inane and pedantic but hardly the worst on that page. I'll continue to say "being that", "ice tea", "center around", etc. as I please. In linguistics the illustrative analogy is that prescriptivism is akin to an anthropologist entering into a foreign culture and rather than simply observing, they instruct the members of this culture on how to cook, dress, cut their hair, etc. Most modern dictionaries (including the Oxford English dictionary) take a descriptive approach to the study of language.
mozumder 10y ago
This is what happens when you vote Republicans. Republicans will do anything for profit. This is their core driving force. For them, money determines value for everything. "Who gives a shit about anything else? We should reinstate slavery because it would increase profits! Also, poor people are terrible people!" Democrats believe profits are nice and all, but isn't the final metric on value. There are a lot of other variables that determine overall values - happiness, privacy, time, profits, cleanliness, murder rate, etc. Notice that this includes profits, because profits isn't a bad thing. If you value things like privacy or the environment or anything else besides profit, then never vote Republican. Always vote Democrat.
- richforrester 10y ago
  I realise this is a total straw man, but whenever I read Republicans vs Democrats I can't help but think about how utterly insane it is to have the opinions of 300 million Americans represented by TWO parties. Two. So Americans choose to agree with either EVERYTHING person A says, or EVERYTHING person B says. That's what it boils down to. And it freaks me out that in a day and age where we're so educated and "free", we still think that this is a good solution. Apologies for veering off topic. Had to get it off my chest for once, as I don't normally voice this stuff. (Because I'm sure others have said it better before.)
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    It's not that anyone is defending this system, it's that it is the only stable equilibrium of the winner-takes all parts of our elections.
    - state_less 10y ago
      Right, I think you have to change the dynamics. Voting ought to better capture citizens preferences, it like we vote with one hand tied behind our backs. Why can't we at least rank the candidates?
      - 10y ago

bipvanwinkle 10y ago

Although this is mostly true, it's not entirely true (at least in the house).

atomi 10y ago
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00094#position https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...
- ComradeTaco 10y ago
  No, he's correct, about 7% of republicans in the house didn't vote for the bill.
  - sundaeofshock 10y ago
    And 0% of Democrats in the house voted for the bill. This bill is 100% owned by the GOP.
- kej 10y ago
  15 House Republicans voted against it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml
  - macawfish 10y ago
    They're the ones who brand new congress needs to be courting
    - losteric 10y ago
      For reference/laziness: https://brandnewcongress.org/ https://brandnewcongress.org/
  - alexgaribay 10y ago
    I'm glad to see that my congressman is on the list of republicans who voted nay. I would like to think that my call to his office made a difference.
ComradeTaco 10y ago
You're correct and I edited my comment. I suspect that that may just be a tactic to save face in vulnerable districts rather than a sincere desire to oppose the bill.
- saint_fiasco 10y ago
  That's a good point. Are the Republicans who voted against the bill relatively unpopular with their constituencies?
  - ComradeTaco 10y ago
    Hard won congressional seats will often sit out or sometimes even vote against their parties legislation but coordinate their votes inch a way that ensures that their parties legislation still passes. Say you have 54 democrats in the senate, and a democratic president 4 democrats that had difficult races can abstain or vote against the bill while 50 democrats can vote for it, with the vice president being the tiebreaker.
  - RightMillennial 10y ago
    As far as I know Justin Amash is well liked within his district.
- hueving 10y ago
  >I suspect that that may just be a tactic to save face in vulnerable districts rather than a sincere desire to oppose the bill. And the only reason Democrats voted against it was a tactic to save face for their constituents back home. Why in the world would you think some politicians are magically sincere while others are not just by the little letter in parenthesis after their name? Hyper partisan people that think this way are the reason political discourse has gone to shit and everything turns into some childish red team vs blue team ideology. As you keep propagating this mindset, people on both sides keep turning up the volume on their echo chamber and we get the most partisan congress (on both sides) in a hundred years[1]. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/heres-why-president-obama-failed-to-bridge-the-partisan-divide-graphed/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/he...
dannyobrien 10y ago
In the House, 15 Republicans broke ranks to vote against the repeal. With five more votes, it would have failed. That's a very close vote. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/congress-sides-cable-and-telephone-industry https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/congress-sides-cable-a...

0xa 10y ago

The reality is more nuanced--the time to stop this legislation was by preventing it coming to vote in the senate. Typically the senate needs 60 votes to forcefully end debate[0], then merely majority to pass it. Once can disguise support for a bill by approving to end debate, then voting "Nay" given it will get the necessary 50 to be approved. For JS 34 [1] Mitch McConnell (R, KY) limited debate to 10 minutes--I'm unclear from the transcript exactly how this was allowed. Richard Blumenthal (D, CT) offered resistance to limiting debate, and Kamala Harris (D, CA) and Patrick Leahy (D, VT) requested the role be called several times as a delaying tactic, but the limiting of debate went through. Just prior to the vote, Brian Schatz (D, HI) offered some debate, but this is cosmetic given the known votes. My read there is little to be gained by trying to legislate implementation power that has been ceded to the executive branch and the various agencies that are run by appointment, and therefore a costly filibuster and fight was not worth the time, effort and political mud. [0] https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/577d2a5e-2b47-4045-95fa-a76398e41461.pdf https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/577d2a5e-2b47-4045-95fa-a7639... [1] https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/03/23/senate-section/article/S1942-4 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/03/23/sen...

waqf 10y ago
"forcibly", not "forcefully": http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/forceful.html http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/forceful.html
- AlexB138 10y ago
  People don't seem to like this comment, but that is a great link. Browsing around the site, I found this list of common English language errors: http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html Really interesting. Thanks for sharing.
  - 3131s 10y ago
    Most of those are made up prescriptive guidelines, mixed in with some common misspellings. One grumpy person does not get to decide how the rest of us choose to use and evolve language. The "forceful" / "forcible" example is particularly inane and pedantic but hardly the worst on that page. I'll continue to say "being that", "ice tea", "center around", etc. as I please. In linguistics the illustrative analogy is that prescriptivism is akin to an anthropologist entering into a foreign culture and rather than simply observing, they instruct the members of this culture on how to cook, dress, cut their hair, etc. Most modern dictionaries (including the Oxford English dictionary) take a descriptive approach to the study of language.

mozumder 10y ago

This is what happens when you vote Republicans. Republicans will do anything for profit. This is their core driving force. For them, money determines value for everything. "Who gives a shit about anything else? We should reinstate slavery because it would increase profits! Also, poor people are terrible people!" Democrats believe profits are nice and all, but isn't the final metric on value. There are a lot of other variables that determine overall values - happiness, privacy, time, profits, cleanliness, murder rate, etc. Notice that this includes profits, because profits isn't a bad thing. If you value things like privacy or the environment or anything else besides profit, then never vote Republican. Always vote Democrat.

richforrester 10y ago
I realise this is a total straw man, but whenever I read Republicans vs Democrats I can't help but think about how utterly insane it is to have the opinions of 300 million Americans represented by TWO parties. Two. So Americans choose to agree with either EVERYTHING person A says, or EVERYTHING person B says. That's what it boils down to. And it freaks me out that in a day and age where we're so educated and "free", we still think that this is a good solution. Apologies for veering off topic. Had to get it off my chest for once, as I don't normally voice this stuff. (Because I'm sure others have said it better before.)
- mattnewton 10y ago
  It's not that anyone is defending this system, it's that it is the only stable equilibrium of the winner-takes all parts of our elections.
  - state_less 10y ago
    Right, I think you have to change the dynamics. Voting ought to better capture citizens preferences, it like we vote with one hand tied behind our backs. Why can't we at least rank the candidates?
    - 10y ago