The Most Fresh & Cordial Political Thread Ever

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

Oh I looked at it. There's really nothing relevant in it.

Here's the summary:
-Fox News didn't want John Stewart on.
-Stewart called out Senate Republicans for blocking the bill (which was actually just a cloture motion).
-The block was led by Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania - says he made false claims about a $400 billion slush fund, but doesn't explain why the claims are false or provide any evidence showing the claims are false.
-Says Toomey’s argument is easily debunked, but doesn't provide any facts as to how or why.

More spoon feeding.

Thank you , This is a great example of trump ignorant BS pretending it doesn't say this or that when it debunks your claim and clearly does, congratulations you're full trump sheep.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Thank you , This is a great example of trump ignorant BS pretending it doesn't say this or that when it debunks your claim and clearly does, congratulations you're full trump sheep.

https://www.toomey.senate.gov/newsro...spending-binge

There is a 400 billion budget spending gimmick which is unrelated to veterans. When an amendment came up to remove this gimmick, it was voted down by democrats. If it’s remove the bill would pass. Democrats and Jon Stewart can shut the fuck up about the vote down

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

https://www.toomey.senate.gov/newsro...spending-binge

There is a 400 billion budget spending gimmick which is unrelated to veterans. When an amendment came up to remove this gimmick, it was voted down by democrats. If it’s remove the bill would pass. Democrats and Jon Stewart can shut the fuck up about the vote down

That's just an announcement by his office saying why they voted it down.

It would really be more helpful if they could point to the specific line item as the reason for the no-vote. Surely if this is the case a record exists of the amendment to change the budget gimmick?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

That's just an announcement by his office saying why they voted it down.

It would really be more helpful if they could point to the specific line item as the reason for the no-vote. Surely if this is the case a record exists of the amendment to change the budget gimmick?

ABC news:

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said he would schedule another procedural vote on Monday. He offered Toomey a vote on an amendment to close the "budget gimmick" that would require 60 votes to be added to the bill. It's unclear if Toomey, and other Republicans, will accept that deal and allow the bill to proceed to a final vote on the floor.


Looks like Dems will remove it Monday. Good

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

ABC news:

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said he would schedule another procedural vote on Monday. He offered Toomey a vote on an amendment to close the "budget gimmick" that would require 60 votes to be added to the bill. It's unclear if Toomey, and other Republicans, will accept that deal and allow the bill to proceed to a final vote on the floor.


Looks like Dems will remove it Monday. Good

Whole lotta talking but all I really want to see is the amendment that states in writing what the actual budget gimmick is and whether or not it actually pertains to the bill in question.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by mooby

That's just an announcement by his office saying why they voted it down.

It would really be more helpful if they could point to the specific line item as the reason for the no-vote. Surely if this is the case a record exists of the amendment to change the budget gimmick?

Well it is Toomey saying this - not a Ted Cruz or a Rob Johnson. People like to look at the source - just saying.