5 ms·
The actual text of the bill probably has a lot of unrelated things in it as most do. There could have been an objection on those grounds. As a general rule, whe
by decremental 5y ago
The actual text of the bill probably has a lot of unrelated things in it as most do. There could have been an objection on those grounds. As a general rule, whenever both parties agree on something you just know it's got to be bad. They usually only drop the pretense that they're two opposing sides of a political divide when the ruling class has an enormous amount to gain.
- indeedmug 5y agoYou could always look at specific issues with the bill's text rather than just spreading cynicism.
- decremental 5y agoThere is nothing more cynical than American politics and you should never give those politicians unearned benefit of the doubt.
- CogitoCogito 5y agoI find decremental's response significantly _less_ cynical than Flatcircle's post which he/she responded to. Flatcircle is basically asking "how could this have happened short of bribery?" while decremental is saying "there could be many reasons depending on the details of the bill". I think your characterization is a bit unfair.
- Flatcircle 5y agoI specifically ask a question at the start of my comment asking if there’s reasons to vote no. Then I mention does that no vote line up with how they consistently vote on other bills, for instance avoiding pork barrel bills. It appears that all the nay votes are southern republicans. Which I’m a bit surprised by as they are often China hawks. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=117&session=1&vote=00226 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...