It failed, miserably:
Republicans evidently hoped to use the legislation, which contains a variety of far-fetched and fiscally unrealistic propositions, either to show Americans how radical Democrats — including 2020 presidential candidates — are becoming, or to split the left on the measure by enticing some moderate senators to vote against it.So do they support it, or not? And what does "supporting" it mean if they don't vote for it? And if it's the moral imperative of our time, why won't the Democratic leadership of the House even bring it up for a vote?
Perhaps sensing a trap, most Democratic senators decided not to vote on the bill at all, instead voting “present.” The final vote was 0-57. All 53 Republican senators voted “no” on the measure, and they were joined by three Democrats: Doug Jones (Ala.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), along with Independent senator Angus King (Maine), who caucuses with the Democrats.
According to reporting from the Washington Post, Democrats called McConnell’s decision to bring the bill to the floor a “sham,” but the majority leader had little sympathy for this claim: “Do you believe it’s a prescription for America?” McConnell said. “Then why would you not want to vote for it? A vote for ‘present’ is a vote for it.”
Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), meanwhile, said that “[McConnell’s] stunt is backfiring” and claimed “the Republican party is way behind the times on clean energy.” At a press conference for the Green New Deal earlier today, the Senate bill’s chief sponsor Ed Markey (D., Mass.) claimed he stood behind the proposal. “It is the national-security, economic, health-care, and moral issue of our time,” he said. But Markey, along with 52 of his fellow Democrats, still refused to vote in favor of the legislation.
Meanwhile, every Democratic senator running for president has publicly stated his or her support for the Green New Deal, and, in fact, all of them have even signed on to Markey’s legislation as a cosponsor. Yet not one of them voted in favor of the measure this afternoon.
If you expect morality or leadership from liberals, you'll always be disappointed.
8 comments:
one of your best headlines...made me laugh pretty good :-)
So now you’re mocking an adversary (who doesn’t even know you exist) on the basis of appearance? Do you not own a mirror, chrome dome?
2:15am...on a weekend...alone...reading my blog. Tell me again how attractive you are.
How lucky the students at your school are! While the entire faculty endures inservice training on the dangers of cyber bullying, you’re out there showing the kiddos how “adults” do it to promote their “grown-up” political agenda.
You are an inspiring role model for how hate can best be publicly displayed: “Bolshevik Barbie” and “Donkey Chompers” are among your best work of late. You have much to teach the children.
Such as how fearful they should be of one representative from a distant district. She’s so scary! Can you make your next epithet something to do with her lipstick? That’d get her good.
Pointing out the idiocy of a member of congress now constitutes bullying? Good thing the weather is cooling off again, we wouldn't want you little snowflakes to melt.
Donkey-chompers isn't scary. She's an idiot. Her 15 minutes of fame are already up. Your own side doesn't even want her around. But hey, please, please, keep supporting her. It helps my side. Her idiocy is a *great* selling point for voting Republican!
As the Instapundit often says: All the Dems have to do is not act crazy, and they can't even do that.
The guy who gets verklempt because nobody at his workplace subscribes to his Tea Party extremism tags anyone else as a "snowflake". That's richer than Trump (admittedly not a high bar).
Casting opponents as "idiots" shows ample intellectual weakness—and the "idiot" well is one you go to ... often.
Launching appearance-based epithets is a grade-school tactic. If that's where your side lives, I guess that's where you gotta go to speak to your echo chamber.
We expect better of the students at your school. They are taught (not in your class) to make arguments on matters of substance rather than to engage in name-calling (especially name-calling on the basis of physical appearance).
I understand your reflexive deflection of that charge. But if you feel appearance-based invectives are so important to your well-reasoned and insightful argument, certainly you can justify their use in a compelling manner.
Or just continue to deflect: that's what your hero Trump would do. Is it that when people refer to him as the Cheetoh-in-Chief, you are thrown for such a loop as you cannot recover from? Do you merely aspire to match their classiness?
As far as Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is concerned, it's amusing that you are simultaneously obsessed and dismissive. I recommend leaning harder on the dismissive; the obsession is embarrassing. BTW, how did running against Nancy Pelosi work for you in the Blunami of 2018?
Really? I get verklempt? Uh, no. I don't expect you to change your mind, but have you even known me to back down in the face of overwhelming numbers? You, on the other hand, seek me out. You come here because "someone is wrong on the internet" and *you* have to fix me. Well done, Don Quixote.
You have a strange view of things--there's not much you right that I can recognize as having a link to the real world. You commit the sins you ascribe to me, and then some. Are you obsessed or dismissive of *me*?
I *welcome* you here, you validate *every* *single* *thing* I say about lefties.
Go have a croissant with Donkey-chompers.
https://reason.com/2019/08/03/everyone-has-a-right-to-call-politicians-idiots/
Post a Comment