Democrats Strike Down Zika Funding

[Garnier Fructis]

I think everyone is in agreement with this. Voting on one thing at a time would get things that the majority like passed, with a lot of bipartisan support. I don't understand why politicians try to leverage situations and add things into bills that are not completely relevant.

Probably because if they proposed these ideas in their own bills, it would have a ghost of a chance of passing.

[Felya]

Why would it be an issue? They were still Americans. And yes I know liberals like to think the confederate flag is evil (they already think the american flag is evil) and all that but some people like the rebel symbolism or southern pride.

Southern Pride is not American pride. Flying a flag of those who fought against the American flag, in a military cemetery is fucked up. Go ahead and check what the Union flag that confederates were attacking looked like in the Civil War, then tell me the "rebel" flag is not directly opposed to the American flag. If confederates won, the American flag would not be what it is.

While you complain about ebil liberals thinking American flag is evil, you are actually supporting placement of a flag that wanted the American flag we have to not exist. You think confederates were just turning their backs at the American flag or shooting at it?

[Cthulhu 2020]

I see... Does the president have a say in how the census is done?

The census and redistricting, as far as I'm aware, is not determined by who is in power, but rather a committee made up of both parties. In 2010 for some odd reason, Republicans gerrymandered the FUCK out of the districts, which is why we have 8 (or more) states with Democrat majority voters but Republican majority seats.

It was a huge mistake on the part of the Democrats to just let so many shitty redistricting calls go through unstopped, and nobody is really sure precisely why it happened, but it did. 2020 is a chance to correct that error... or at least level the playing field.

[Annoying]

Probably because if they proposed these ideas in their own bills, it would have a ghost of a chance of passing.

Yeah, there's some issues that would never happen. State <X> wants federal funding for a new dam? Good luck getting the other 49 states to vote for it.

[Noxx79]

I think everyone is in agreement with this. Voting on one thing at a time would get things that the majority like passed, with a lot of bipartisan support. I don't understand why politicians try to leverage situations and add things into bills that are not completely relevant.

It goes both ways though. Congress CAN get smaller things passed for niche requests like an increase in such and such's budget to research so and so if it's attached to a larger bill that will get major bipartisan support.

The problem with riders basically is two fold:
1) when congress doesn't even look at the riders and get them passed without fully understanding (example is the Puerto Rico debt crisis - some options were killed because of a rider that nobody's even sure why it was put it,
2)Poison pill amendments - see the Zika funding.

On the other hand, it allows some laws to be passed that would have no chance in open debate, such as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domest...fender_Gun_Ban - prevents domestic abusers from owning guns. - With that, there's a very vocal and non-insubstantial amount of people that will cry foul at that ban, but there are likely just as many, if not more, people OK with it. The bill by itself would never make it through congress as we can see what happens to anything involving gun control.

[Orlong]

Vote for a clean Zika Funding Bill for fucks sake. Argue your ideological opposition to planned parent hood another time.

Every bill should be clean. Its bullshit that they are always adding unrelated shit to bills. Both sides are guilty of this bullshit

[zenkai]

Every bill should be clean. Its bullshit that they are always adding unrelated shit to bills. Both sides are guilty of this bullshit

I remember thinking that when I learned about it in school. Some good things probably also would have never pass if it wasn't for that ability to do so.

[Orlong]

I remember thinking that when I learned about it in school. Some good things probably also would have never pass if it wasn't for that ability to do so.

Then they must not have been such good things. Good things will always get lots of votes

[Garnier Fructis]

Then they must not have been such good things. Good things will always get lots of votes

This presupposes that Congressman are always acting in the best interests of their constituents and the nation as a whole. Which is clearly false.

[zenkai]

Then they must not have been such good things. Good things will always get lots of votes

Except no, are you telling there isn't bills that you would consider good but the other side doesn't and therefore votes against it?

[stabetha]

Totally unlike the Republicans, who attach things like "remove funds from planned parenthood" onto bills that have to be passed to keep government running, huh?

you're kidding yourself if you belive the Republicans are the only ones doing this.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

you're kidding yourself if you belive the Republicans are the only ones doing this.

Of course I don't, but the poster I was responding to appeared to be under the misapprehension that this was entirely due to the actions of the democrats.

[Paranoid Android]

Why I love our Congress. A bill that should be simple to combat zika as a threat to public health. Instead gets a bunch of bullshit added so the bill never gets passed. Also to be very partisan. Of course one party had to add some bullshit that has nothing to do with Zika (well there is irony) and surely the other party would never approve.

- - - Updated - - -

Every bill should be clean. Its bullshit that they are always adding unrelated shit to bills. Both sides are guilty of this bullshit

OMFG!! I agree with Orlong! Hallelujah!

[Narwal]

I feel like stuff like this is why people don't trust particular parties. A bill to efforts against Zika was introduced to the house but approving it meant taking away from Planned Parenthood (so much irony in that statement) and allowing the Confederate flag to be flown veteran cemeteries (why would the military endorse battle flag of a defeated traitor nation).

Of course in a few months we'll hear how so and so didn't approve the bill but they'll "forget" to mention what was attached to the bill.

The bill wasn't taking away from Planned Parenthood. It simply said this "new" funding could not go to Planned Parenthood, PP would still keep all it's current funding.

- - - Updated - - -

Why I love our Congress. A bill that should be simple to combat zika as a threat to public health. Instead gets a bunch of bullshit added so the bill never gets passed. Also to be very partisan. Of course one party had to add some bullshit that has nothing to do with Zika (well there is irony) and surely the other party would never approve.

- - - Updated - - -



OMFG!! I agree with Orlong! Hallelujah!

My understanding is the Planned Parenthood stipulation was still Zika related. It didn't take away from PP, it simply said none of the new funding for Zika can go to PP. So what you're saying is not entirely true, they didn't add a rider that was not Zika specific. The stipulation was directly focused at Zika, and how this money can and should be used.

- - - Updated - - -

Every bill should be clean. Its bullshit that they are always adding unrelated shit to bills. Both sides are guilty of this bullshit

Should a bill that gives 1 billion dollars towards the fight against Zika, not have language in it to assure the money only goes towards the fight against Zika? It's true what republicans are doing here is political, however, it does still fall in the sphere of "We are adding stipulations to assure this funding goes only to the fight against Zika". Clearly republicans want to reduce PP in anyway they can because they bring about an easy way to get an abortion. I'm not naive, however, the stipulation for PP they've added to this bill is being completely over-blown.

[Orlong]

Except no, are you telling there isn't bills that you would consider good but the other side doesn't and therefore votes against it?

Then its only a good bill for one side or the other, not for the nation as a whole. Good bills that affect the entire nation will always get enough votes. Pet projects or kickbacks to big donors to partisan campaigns arent good bills

- - - Updated - - -

Of course I don't, but the poster I was responding to appeared to be under the misapprehension that this was entirely due to the actions of the democrats.

Yet when the democrats tack on an unrelated subject and the republicans vote it down they are called obstructionists and demonized because they wont vote yes on the important part, but its somehow OK when democrats do it.

[zenkai]

Then its only a good bill for one side or the other, not for the nation as a whole. Good bills that affect the entire nation will always get enough votes. Pet projects or kickbacks to big donors to partisan campaigns arent good bills

Not everything is black and white, that's what D and R's do, try to make it all back and white.