You're aware this vote was in the house, right? So you've provided exactly zero out of "many" dems who voted against this bill because they wanted to do way worse.
What's your opinion of the republicans who voted yes for this bill? It must be worse than voting no, right? Or is this just a partisan issue?
I've no doubt that there have been democrats on the wrong side of these issues at various points. Chris Dodd was a democrat. But don't tell me a "no" vote is actually worse than a "yes" vote on this bill. The only way you can contort yourself into that position is putting partisan loyalty ahead of critical thinking.
Can you share where the fact that Democrats didn't support it is documented? I'm open to hearing this is the truth, and I'm also wanting to disprove my assumption this is a Republican talking point. I will definitely read what you provide.
The votes in both the house and the senate were almost entirely along party lines. Every republican in the senate that voted, voted for this act and every democrat in the senate that voted, voted against this act.
I certainly don't mean to be defending either party, but the bill received bi-partisan support. Only 2 reps voted against it in the house, and it received unanimous support in the senate (which includes 12 democrats).
It's a factually true statement, folks. Check the vote counts, and you'll see that it went down along party lines, with Republicans in the majority of the 'no' votes. In fact, over 67% of House Republicans voted against the bill.
The White House lobbied heavily for the measure, and the Republicans in the House shot it down. That's interesting.
I feel like the wording in your original post was particularly poor though - instead of focusing in on those two as individuals you attributed the issue to democrats as a whole - and also omitted that the bill would also pass quite easily if, say, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz decided to vote for it. You mentioned that it passed due to the previous administration (a republican administration) and was now in danger (under a democratic administration) due to corrupt democrats. It's a guideline on HN to always read things as charitably as possible but the wording here was really really poor and could easily be read as a proposition that the democrats were torpedoing something championed by republicans. Additionally - specifically pulling political parties into the discussion will always make the discourse degrade.
The GOP opposes it; they are the obstacle. I think such actions by the GOP has become normalized for people, and so they overlook it. I don't see how you can blame the Democrats, who are voting for it.
> If it was priority for the Dems, they'd have done it.
What's your opinion of the republicans who voted yes for this bill? It must be worse than voting no, right? Or is this just a partisan issue?
I've no doubt that there have been democrats on the wrong side of these issues at various points. Chris Dodd was a democrat. But don't tell me a "no" vote is actually worse than a "yes" vote on this bill. The only way you can contort yourself into that position is putting partisan loyalty ahead of critical thinking.
reply