07-28-2022, 06:54 AM
(07-28-2022, 12:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I remember watching Al Franken (who I quite like) thoroughly dismantle claims against John Kerry voting against military funding.
He thoroughly dismantled the claims by pointing out how much pork, or add-ons, were added to the bill that caused the no vote. Since that time I have never taken "X voted no against X" at face value. Was there a specific reason? Was there an add-on that caused the no vote? I know asking such questions is painful for pure partisan hacks, but these are questions I'd liked asked, and answered, before I condemn someone for their vote. Note, I'm not a fan of Gaetz, despite the spin some will try and put on this post, but I do ask for clarity before I start gnashing my teeth and pulling my hair.
I agree with your sentiment here, because it is a common tactic to put what is called a "poison pill" in there to force exactly that. However, based on the text of the bill, I'm not finding any pork.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6552/text
There were also no amendments to the bill, so it actually passed clean which is something that happens only when they are looking to pass a bill with bipartisan support that they know will have widespread appeal. Now, usually legislators will have some excuse for not voting for a bill like this, and I am sure Gaetz will come up with something (I did look and I didn't see anything from him, yet). However, it's just a bad look when he is under investigation for sex trafficking that he would vote against this bill.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
