Elections 16/16 members of the house in Florida vote against aid

AWilder said:
I will as soon as you can show me the exact bill for childhood cancer that has nothing to do with childhood cancer.
Click to expand...
I didn't say there was. The point I was making was that they'll name a bill they everyone will get behind such as "End childhood cancer" and then the bill has little to nothing to do with the title.

You didn't catch that the first time around? With the tears in your eyes, you thought I was citing a specific bill?

<Dany07>

So since you didn't understand I was talking about a general political manipulation strategy, it's safe to assume your reply post was just some emotional rambling in a "see!!! I can make stuff up too!!!" way as you miss the entire point

<{Heymansnicker}>
 
Horse Style said:
I didn't say there was. The point I was making was that they'll name a bill they everyone will get behind such as "End childhood cancer" and then the bill has little to nothing to do with the title.

You didn't catch that the first time around? With the tears in your eyes, you thought I was citing a specific bill?

<Dany07>

So since you didn't understand I was talking about a general political manipulation strategy, it's safe to assume your reply post was just some emotional rambling in a "see!!! I can make stuff up too!!!" as you miss the entire point

<{Heymansnicker}>
Click to expand...
And you didn't understand, with tears in your eyes that I was using your rhetorical fallacy to point out how dumb it is?
 
AWilder said:
And you didn't understand, with tears in your eyes that I was using your rhetorical fallacy to point out how dumb it is?
Click to expand...
How did you do that by making up some irrelevant, fantasy steps politicians do?

I point out that politicians use bill titles to manipulate people to support what's in a bill and you reply with "well, politicians vote against help for their citizens and lie about why!!"

How was that supposed to "point out how dumb" my point was? Or are you just saying that now because your rambling "point" fell apart immediately?

<36>
 
Fake Doctor said:
Any more details? I've put some effort into trying to unpack these details in this thread and yes, I see a fair bit of pork in there along with no funding for the current disaster... But I also see 18 billion for future disasters that they are voting against in a state where disasters aren't that uncommon. Yes there is pork, but if there is another big hurricane next season, this bill - pork and all - not passing is going to hurt their constituents badly. It's fine to stand on principle, but if this fucks their constituents, I'd expect a very robust case for standing on principle. I'd also expect every one of these figures to be trying to advance legislation that leads to more streamlined bills so they don't have to choose between principle and relief for their state in the future. If they're not doing that, their principles seem pretty empty.

What more, it makes it look a hell of a lot like they're just playing along in the scheme I outlined in post 16. As long as they can say "Well, you would have the relief we voted against if not for those dastardly Democrats!" it really looks like they're just playing into this vicious political cycle for their political benefit.

Again, full disclosure - I'm relatively ignorant on this. That's why I'd prefer for people to come in and make a case (kudos to @Gomi1977 for that) rather than just come in and play out the "My team is awesome! The other team is evil!" so the bullshit can continue. The OP is pointing out something that is rightly a sketchy looking move by these politicians. A comprehensive case defending it would be great right now, rather than just warmed up "pork barrel!" talking points. All I'm asking is that if your team is doing something worthwhile when it looks like they're doing something bad, be able to give some specifics in their defense.
Click to expand...

From the outside looking in and not knowing any details, it almost feels like it has to be true.

I mean, why would anyone vote against support for their own state? It feels like they MUST have good reasons.
 
Horse Style said:
How did you do that by making up some irrelevant, fantasy steps politicians do?

I point out that politicians use bill titles to manipulate people to support what's in a bill and you reply with "well, politicians vote against help for their citizens and lie about why!!"

How was that supposed to "point out how dumb" my point was? Or are you just saying that now because your rambling "point" fell apart immediately?

<36>
Click to expand...
It's hard to read your unhinged posts. The memes are a real sign of intelligence.

 
AWilder said:
It's hard to read your unhinged posts. The memes are a real sign of intelligence.

Click to expand...

Aww, I know reading comprehension is hard for you, but I'll ask again:

How exactly did your "steps" post show that my post about general political manipulation was a dumb point?

I'm not even going to ask what that tweet has to do with my point because asking you too many questions at once will make your brain implode (and I already know it has nothing to with my argument).

<{Heymansnicker}><{Heymansnicker}>
 
Horse Style said:
How did you do that by making up some irrelevant, fantasy steps politicians do?

I point out that politicians use bill titles to manipulate people to support what's in a bill and you reply with "well, politicians vote against help for their citizens and lie about why!!"

How was that supposed to "point out how dumb" my point was? Or are you just saying that now because your rambling "point" fell apart immediately?

<36>
Click to expand...
The FEMA DFR appropriation was added to the stopgap bill, to prevent government shutdown. Catchy bill title, innit?
 
Why should my tax payer dollars go to people that choose to live in a place that continuously gets wrecked by the weather.
Some people decided not to live on a place that constantly suffers mother natures wrath, why should they have to pay for others decisions.
 
jefferz said:
Why should my tax payer dollars go to people that choose to live in a place that continuously gets wrecked by the weather.
Some people decided not to live on a place that constantly suffers mother natures wrath, why should they have to pay for others decisions.
Click to expand...
They should just pull themselves up by their boot straps and canoe their asses to a drier state
 
jefferz said:
Why should my tax payer dollars go to people that choose to live in a place that continuously gets wrecked by the weather.
Some people decided not to live on a place that constantly suffers mother natures wrath, why should they have to pay for others decisions.
Click to expand...
It’s a great way to pay back donors with FEMA contracts. Get with the times, mang.
 
jefferz said:
Why should my tax payer dollars go to people that choose to live in a place that continuously gets wrecked by the weather.
Some people decided not to live on a place that constantly suffers mother natures wrath, why should they have to pay for others decisions.
Click to expand...
That's a strong take. I agree with you. We should punish them because they also don't vote Democrat like me and you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sinister
Law Florida Republicans: "Sexually harassing teens in the workplace is ok"
5 6 7
Replies
136
Views
5K
terrapin
terrapin
Dillydilly
  • Sportsbook Event
NCAAB (16) Alabama Crimson Tide vs Florida Gators 7pm ET 3-5
Replies
8
Views
306
Dillydilly
Dillydilly
Dillydilly
  • Sportsbook Event
NCAAB Florida Gators vs (6)Tennessee Volunteers 5pm ET 1-16
Replies
0
Views
167
Dillydilly
Dillydilly
Dillydilly
  • Sportsbook Event
NCAAB (15)Florida Atlantic Owls vs St. Bonaventure Bonnies 4pm ET 12-16
Replies
0
Views
157
Dillydilly
Dillydilly
Dillydilly
  • Sportsbook Event
NCAAB Texas A&M Aggies vs Florida Gators 3:30pm ET 3-16
Replies
1
Views
138
helax
helax

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,764
Messages
55,584,765
Members
174,832
Latest member
Konster1

Share this page

Back
Top