Economy Representative Salazar admits she's a partisan hack, demands praise for it.

[Sinister]

This has got to be one of the most uncomfortable interviews of a politician I've ever seen, and shows how effective holding their feet to the fire can be, and Defede wasnt even being particularly brutal.

Florida Representative Maria Salazar was asked about the age-old Republican tactic of voting against bills in Washington, and when those bills pass anyway, presenting the money to her constituents locally for photo-ops and taking credit for the funding as if she DIDN'T vote against giving these people that same money. She was woefully unprepared to handle being asked that and not only claims to not remember what she votes on, but then prods DeFede about how he should be proud of her that she was so generous in presenting funds she voted against lol

Segment begins at 15:50:

 

[HOLA]

"Vote no, take the dough."

Tommy Tuberville did the same thing a few weeks ago:

Sen. Tommy Tuberville voted against a bill that just gave his state $1.4 billion for rural broadband. He's celebrating it anyway.

Tuberville joined most Republicans in voting against the bipartisan infrastructure law in 2021, despite the inclusion of funding for rural broadband.

www.businessinsider.com

On Tuesday, Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama celebrated the fact that his state will receive $1.4 billion in federal funding to expand access to the internet statewide.

"Broadband is vital for the success of our rural communities and for our entire economy," he wrote. "Great to see Alabama receive crucial funds to boost ongoing broadband efforts."

The wrinkle: nearly two years ago, Tuberville voted against the bill that's providing that money.

 

[WhitestKidU’Know]

This is some petty behavior. You’re not wrong but still… lol

 

[nostradumbass]

A politician who runs for office as a member of a political party is a "partisan"? Wow, what an amazing thread.

 

[Sinister]

A politician who runs for office as a member of a political party is a "partisan"? Wow, what an amazing thread.

A politician who votes so hard according to party she cannot recall her votes against bills she presented the funding that resulted of to her constituents is a partisan...hack.

 

[nostradumbass]

A politician who votes so hard according to party she cannot recall her votes against bills she presented the funding that resulted of Topher constituents is a partisan...hack.

What grade are you in? Not sure what a "Topher constituent" is, but the consolidated appropriations act of 2023 was a $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill, and the check she presented to FIU was $600,000 out of the $1.7 trillion in spending. The "chips act" was $280 billion in new spending.

She didn't vote against a bill that was just for a $600,000 check to FIU, she voted against the 99.999% of the bill that wasn't. How is this hard to wrap your head around? Herp derp, you can't complain about getting paid 10 cents for an 80 hour work week if you still spent the 10 cents.

 

[Sinister]

What grade are you in? Not sure what a "Topher constituent" is, but the consolidated appropriations act of 2023 was a $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill, and the check she presented to FIU was $600,000 out of the $1.7 trillion in spending. The "chips act" was $280 billion in new spending.

She didn't vote against a bill that was just for a $600,000 check to FIU, she voted against the 99.999% of the bill that wasn't. How is this hard to wrap your head around? Herp derp, you can't complain about getting paid 10 cents for an 80 hour work week if you still spent the 10 cents.

That was an auto-correct error on my phone, genius.

She voted against the bills that provided the funding she presented. How hard is that for you to wrap your head around? She voted against the bills, which means if they hadnt passed despite her vote against, there would have been no $600k herp derp.

 

[nostradumbass]

That was an auto-correct error on my phone, genius.

She voted against the bills that provided the funding she presented. How hard is that for you to wrap your head around? She voted against the bills, which means if they hadnt passed despite her vote against, there would have been no $600k herp derp.

Yes, I read your OP the first time and pointed out that it was moronic, and apparently you have no comment on the 99.9999% of the spending in the bill that she voted against.

 

[Sinister]

Yes, I read your OP the first time and pointed out that it was moronic, and apparently you have no comment on the 99.9999% of the spending in the bill that she voted against.

She voted against the bill that provided the funding. She didn't argue against that in any way, she claimed to not even remember voting against them and said she would have to ask her team lol

You can try to rationalize it all you want, if it wouldnt have passed DESPITE her vote there would have been NO CHECK. She is taking credit for sh*t she didnt want, presenting the funding as if it was her accomplishment, and even demanded praise for it. Your support of that is moronic.

 

[nostradumbass]

She voted against the bill that provided the funding. She didn't argue against that in any way, she claimed to not even remember voting against them and said she would have to ask her team lol

You can try to rationalize it all you want, if it wouldnt have passed DESPITE her vote there would have been NO CHECK. She is taking credit for sh*t she didnt want, presenting the funding as if it was her accomplishment, and even demanded praise for it. Your support of that is moronic.

A check for $600k does not require an additional $1.7 trillion to be spent elsewhere. You seem to be having a hard time here so let's simplify it. If I tried to charge you $800 million for a Toyota corolla, and you said no, you want a corolla but not for $800 million, so I just took $800 million from you and left you keys, would you then think "well I guess I owe him a thank you because him taking the $800 million is the only reason I have this sweet corolla"?

I don't know how you're a grown person who didn't realize that spending bills are a trade off where they add a bunch of stuff you don't want, and something you do want, and then you vote for whether giving up the stuff is worth getting the thing that you want. In this case, the proposition was 0.0001% something she does want, against 99.9999% stuff she does not, for which the answer should obviously be no.

 

[Rob Battisti]

All politicians are scum, more news at 11.

 

[jk7707]

That's what far right Republicans do. They know that when it comes down to actual policy, those that they support are not popular with the majority of Americans. So they take credit for democrat pushed policies that do pass despite being the same exact people railing against them to their constituents and voting against them every time.

 

[Whippy McGee]

Ummmmm... I think TS should know, most of them are partisan hacks.

 

[Joe]

All politicians are scum, more news at 11.

Republicans touting and taking credit about work they voted against is as old as time

 

[Rob Battisti]

Republicans touting and taking credit about work they voted against is as old as time

sounds like every politician

 

[Joe]

sounds like very politician

so it deserves to be ignored and not called out

 

[Rob Battisti]

so it deserves to be ignored and not called out

I am all for calling it out. Just is so common.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

so it deserves to be ignored and not called out

nah just stop pretending you give a shit.

 

[My Spot]

This is a response thread because Queen B got triggered by the Sotomayor thread yesterday. <Lmaoo>

 

[Sinister]

A check for $600k does not require an additional $1.7 trillion to be spent elsewhere. You seem to be having a hard time here so let's simplify it. If I tried to charge you $800 million for a Toyota corolla, and you said no, you want a corolla but not for $800 million, so I just took $800 million from you and left you keys, would you then think "well I guess I owe him a thank you because him taking the $800 million is the only reason I have this sweet corolla"?

I don't know how you're a grown person who didn't realize that spending bills are a trade off where they add a bunch of stuff you don't want, and something you do want, and then you vote for whether giving up the stuff is worth getting the thing that you want. In this case, the proposition was 0.0001% something she does want, against 99.9999% stuff she does not, for which the answer should obviously be no.

You're the one having a hard time. She voted against the bill. She voted against the whole thing. And she never made the argument you're making when pressed, she claimed she didnt even remember HOW she voted on these big bills that garnered National attention. THEN she touted the funding received from the bill other people had to vote in as if it was HER accomplishment, and demanded PRAISE for it lol. She clearly didn't want to admit this basic truth, and you want to justify it.