Chaos in House after GOP votes down LGBT measure

[TheDemSocialist]

The House floor devolved into chaos and shouting on Thursday as a measure to ensure protections for members of the LGBT community narrowly failed to pass after Republican leaders urged their members to change their votes.Initially, it appeared Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney’s (D-N.Y.) amendment had passed, as 217 “yes” votes piled up over 206 “no” votes when the clock ran out. The measure needed 213 votes to pass.
But it eventually failed on a 212-213 vote after a number of Republican lawmakers changed their votes from “yes” to “no” after the clock had expired.
GOP leaders held the vote open as they pressured members to change sides. Infuriating Democrats, they let lawmakers switch their votes without walking to the well at the front of the chamber.
“Shame! Shame! Shame!” Democrats chanted as they watched the vote tally go from passage of Maloney’s amendment to narrow failure.
Twenty-nine Republicans voted for Maloney’s amendment to a spending bill for the Department of Veterans Affairs and military construction projects, along with all Democrats in the final roll call.
“This is one of the ugliest episodes I’ve experienced in my three-plus years as a member of this House,” Maloney, who is openly gay, said while offering his amendment.
The amendment would have effectively nullified a provision in the defense authorization that the House passed late Wednesday night. The language embedded in the defense bill states that religious corporations, associations and institutions that receive federal contracts can’t be discriminated against on the basis of religion.
Democrats warn that such a provision could potentially allow discrimination against the LGBT community in the name of religious freedom. Maloney’s amendment specifically would prohibit funds to implement contracts with any company that doesn’t comply with President Obama’s executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers.

Read more @: Chaos in House after GOP votes down LGBT measure

This is pretty ****ed up. Whole lot of arm twisting went on to ensure that a motion to protect LGBT people from discrimination by withholding money to federal contractors who do not comply with an order banning them from discriminating against LGBT workers. This is a pretty big low for those who switched their votes. Shame on them.

 

[Ikari]

Read more @: Chaos in House after GOP votes down LGBT measure

This is pretty ****ed up. Whole lot of arm twisting went on to ensure that a motion to protect LGBT people from discrimination by withholding money to federal contractors who do not comply with an order banning them from discriminating against LGBT workers. This is a pretty big low for those who switched their votes. Shame on them. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Party politics, it will only get worse, particularly if Hillary or Trump is elected. This is what Republocrat control of the Republic looks like.

 

[mike2810]

Party politics, it will only get worse, particularly if Hillary or Trump is elected. This is what Republocrat control of the Republic looks like.

nah, , It is what it looks like when there is such a split in values between politicians of all parties.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Two points:

I believe it's relatively common for House leaders to hold votes open and whip changes to votes to ensure they get the totals they want. I'm pretty sure the Democrat Party does it frequently themselves, when they're in the majority.

Secondly, seems pretty sneaky to try to amend such a bill for the purpose of codifying an edict from President Obama. Just on principle, seems Republicans would reject that attempt. Why not try to bring forward legislation honestly and, really, since President Obama has complete contempt for Congress and the role they play in governance, why not just tell him to shove it?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Secondly, seems pretty sneaky to try to amend such a bill for the purpose of codifying an edict from President Obama.

:lamo I forgot if Obama is for it then everyone has to be against it no matter the substance! And in this case the substance was motion to protect LGBT people from discrimination by withholding money to federal contractors who do not comply with an order banning them from discriminating against LGBT workers. And also, offering an amendment is not "sneaky".

Just on principle, seems Republicans would reject that attempt.

Damn Obama! Being for something! But 30+ odd Republicans were for this amendment before the arm twisting began.

Why not try to bring forward legislation honestly

1.)Amendments are honest attempts
2.)The Speaker of the House has the power to bring up legislation on the House Floor not as an amendment. What he says goes. 95% of the time legislation that is brought up is legislation started and dominated by the majority party. There was/is probably little to no hope that this amendment would of been brought up as a stand alone bill.

and, really, since President Obama has complete contempt for Congress and the role they play in governance, why not just tell him to shove it?

Oh brother :roll:

 

[JasperL]

Two points:

I believe it's relatively common for House leaders to hold votes open and whip changes to votes to ensure they get the totals they want. I'm pretty sure the Democrat (sic) Party does it frequently themselves, when they're in the majority.

It's not common for either party, including the Democratic Party, to hold a vote after time has expired and the votes already cast.

Secondly, seems pretty sneaky to try to amend such a bill for the purpose of codifying an edict from President Obama. Just on principle, seems Republicans would reject that attempt. Why not try to bring forward legislation honestly and, really, since President Obama has complete contempt for Congress and the role they play in governance, why not just tell him to shove it?

The amendment voted on by the House is an effort to bring forward legislation honestly....:roll:

 

[Mr Person]

Read more @: Chaos in House after GOP votes down LGBT measure

This is pretty ****ed up. Whole lot of arm twisting went on to ensure that a motion to protect LGBT people from discrimination by withholding money to federal contractors who do not comply with an order banning them from discriminating against LGBT workers. This is a pretty big low for those who switched their votes. Shame on them. [/FONT][/COLOR]

"Religious freedom" my hair arse.

Can't these abject cowards just own up to their bigotry? Oh right. They're abject cowards....

 

[CanadaJohn]

It's not common for either party, including the Democratic Party, to hold a vote after time has expired and the votes already cast.



The amendment voted on by the House is an effort to bring forward legislation honestly....:roll:

I said it's relatively common, and it is. Both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have done it in the past.

Anyone on the left complaining about the process in Congress after what both Pelosi and Reid have done is a hypocrite.

 

[CanadaJohn]

:lamo I forgot if Obama is for it then everyone has to be against it no matter the substance! And in this case the substance was motion to protect LGBT people from discrimination by withholding money to federal contractors who do not comply with an order banning them from discriminating against LGBT workers. And also, offering an amendment is not "sneaky".


Damn Obama! Being for something! But 30+ odd Republicans were for this amendment before the arm twisting began.


1.)Amendments are honest attempts
2.)The Speaker of the House has the power to bring up legislation on the House Floor not as an amendment. What he says goes. 95% of the time legislation that is brought up is legislation started and dominated by the majority party. There was/is probably little to no hope that this amendment would of been brought up as a stand alone bill.


Oh brother :roll:

You may find it funny, but President Obama's contempt for Congress has led to 7 plus years of animosity between the two - can't end soon enough for most people.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

You may find it funny, but President Obama's contempt for Congress has led to 7 plus years of animosity between the two - can't end soon enough for most people.

So we are going to ignore 95% of my post and simply stick to ****ty talking points :thumbs:

 

[CanadaJohn]

So we are going to ignore 95% of my post and simply stick to ****ty talking points :thumbs:

No talking points necessary. President Obama and his administration have disgracefully poisoned the waters on this issue with their dictates to school districts about transgender use of washrooms and showers. There isn't a prayer after that display that he or Democrats would get any cooperation on the issue, and that's a shame. That's just a fact of political life in your country and Obama owns it.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

No talking points necessary. President Obama and his administration have disgracefully poisoned the waters on this issue with their dictates to school districts about transgender use of washrooms and showers. There isn't a prayer after that display that he or Democrats would get any cooperation on the issue, and that's a shame. That's just a fact of political life in your country and Obama owns it.

:lamo You mean the US Department of Justice and US Department of Education directive? You realize that those dont carry the force of law, right and is completely in line with federalism?

 

[CanadaJohn]

:lamo You mean the US Department of Justice and US Department of Education directive? You realize that those dont carry the force of law, right and is completely in line with federalism?

Sure, Obama and Democrats had nothing to do with that incredibly divisive overreach. Like I said, you reap what you sow.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Sure, Obama and Democrats had nothing to do with that incredibly divisive overreach. Like I said, you reap what you sow.

:doh How in the **** is a directive a overreach!? IT DOESNT CONTAIN LEGAL AUTHORITY! Your talking points are complete ****. Your attempt to justify a "no" vote on an anti-discrimination amendment with, "Well Obama is for it so gotta be against it", and for you to try to justify "well Obama is for it so gotta be against it", is a directive. Now your calling a directive, something that does not contain legal authority, "a overreach"? I mean, you do realize directives literally happen all the ****ing time? Like daily.....

 

[CanadaJohn]

:doh How in the **** is a directive a overreach!? IT DOESNT CONTAIN LEGAL AUTHORITY! Your talking points are complete ****. Your attempt to justify a "no" vote on an anti-discrimination amendment with, "Well Obama is for it so gotta be against it", and for you to try to justify "well Obama is for it so gotta be against it", is a directive. Now your calling a directive, something that does not contain legal authority, "a overreach"? I mean, you do realize directives literally happen all the ****ing time? Like daily.....

So, are you trying to claim that the directive didn't come with a threat to federally defund any school district that didn't comply with the order?

The only bull**** here is your attempt to avoid the consequences of the current reality totally created by the Obama White House.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

So, are you trying to claim that the directive didn't come with a threat to federally defund any school district that didn't comply with the order?

Nope. Im not denying that. Im denying that directives is an example of "executive overreach". Nor is the "threat" not in line with basic principles of federalism. Stating that Title IX protects transgendered people. The big hooplah everyone has with this directive is bathrooms!

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2831222-Colleague-201605-Title-Ix-Transgender.html
(Quite a silly and stupid issue. I mean, honestly lets forget that transgendered people have been using bathrooms to which they associate with their gender for years and years.)

Now if the schools do not fall in line with federal law, the federal executive department (Dept of Ed) carrying out the law, may withhold federal funds to which they are empowered to do so under Title IX. This is not an "executive overreach", nor is it illegal, or unconstitutional. This is literally how laws are carried out.

The only bull**** here is your attempt to avoid the consequences of the current reality totally created by the Obama White House.

More lame ****ty talking points.

 

[jmotivator]

Chalk it up to the insanity of the progressive movement that says a person who thinks he is the opposite sex should use the dressing and bathroom of the opposite sex because it makes them comfortable in pretending they are the opposite sex... yet demonizes people who would rather use a bathroom and dressing room used only by their actual biological sex.

In the end, making a transgender use a bathroom with members of their actual sex is no different than making non-transgenders share their bathroom with the opposite sex.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Chalk it up to the insanity of the progressive movement that says a person who thinks he is the opposite sex should use the dressing and bathroom of the opposite sex because it makes them comfortable in pretending they are the opposite sex... yet demonizes people who would rather use a bathroom and dressing room used only by their actual biological sex.

In the end, making a transgender use a bathroom with members of their actual sex is no different than making non-transgenders share their bathroom with the opposite sex.

You do realize transgendered people have been using the bathroom they themselves associate with their sex for years and years and years and years?

 

[JANFU]

Sure, Obama and Democrats had nothing to do with that incredibly divisive overreach. Like I said, you reap what you sow.

And the States that amended and or passed laws on this issue -Nope- nothing there- stop looking and keep on driving.

 

[humbolt]

So we are going to ignore 95% of my post and simply stick to ****ty talking points :thumbs:

95%? I'm ignoring it completely.

 

[rocket88]

I said it's relatively common, and it is. Both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have done it in the past.

Anyone on the left complaining about the process in Congress after what both Pelosi and Reid have done is a hypocrite.

Plenty on the right applauding today Didn't like it when Pelosi or Reid did it. Hypocrisy goes both ways.

 

[rocket88]

Chalk it up to the insanity of the progressive movement that says a person who thinks he is the opposite sex should use the dressing and bathroom of the opposite sex because it makes them comfortable in pretending they are the opposite sex... yet demonizes people who would rather use a bathroom and dressing room used only by their actual biological sex.

In the end, making a transgender use a bathroom with members of their actual sex is no different than making non-transgenders share their bathroom with the opposite sex.

Have any links about men "being demonized" for using the men's room or is this just your usual making bizarre claims?

 

[rocket88]

You do realize transgendered people have been using the bathroom they themselves associate with their sex for years and years and years and years?

And you mean children weren't always being molested?

I keep hoping that DP's own conservative transgender member will weigh on this.

 

[mike2810]

I dislike riders or amendments to Congressional bills that have nothing to do with the primary bill. I remember when pray in school was tied to raising the debt limit in the 80's. Yep, to allow or not allow prayers in schools had a great deal to the debt limit ceiling.:lamo Congress is so broken, it is pathetic. So attaching lgbt amendment to spending bill for the Department of Veterans Affairs and military construction projects is just bad management in my opinion.

Draft a specific bill for lgbt and let it stand on its own merits.

 

[Howler63]

"Religious freedom" my hair arse.

Can't these abject cowards just own up to their bigotry? Oh right. They're abject cowards....

Can't gay people get a cake from people who WANT to make it for them? Oh, right, they're abject agitators.