• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republican who voted against infrastructure bill now takes credit for it...

S

Subieguy

Todays GOP: wrong on EVERYTHING!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2021
Messages
4,112
Reaction score
2,941
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
From your article...


“I fully support funding for infrastructure that is focused on national priorities rather than wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on a Green New Deal wish list and programs under the guise of human infrastructure that simply expand government control of our lives,” Palmer said after the House passed the bill last week.​

Sounds reasonable to me.
 
And then he took credit for the infrastructure bill he voted against.

There’s a word for that. I’ll give you a hint what it is: it starts with “h” and ends in “ypocrisy.”

Of course, I expect right wingers here to run defense for him by saying “everybody lies.”
 
The modern day Republican Party....every historical as a clown car comedy act.....fully vested in the notion that the run of the mill American citizen that votes Republican has no idea what their congressperson voted for or against or whatever the flying frig they are doing. Probably for the most part, they are just happy their congressperson is not trying to date their daughter or even their son for that matter.
 
Cardinal said:
And then he took credit for the infrastructure bill he voted against.
Click to expand...
He supported a particular part of the bill that he had already been trying to get enacted...a part that is actually useful infrastructure.

But what made him vote against the bill is all the other added bullshit.

As I said, sounds reasonable. It's too bad the Dems couldn't be as reasonable as he is instead of creating a bloated bill with stuff that has nothing to do with roads and bridges.
 
Interesting that the fact that he voted against the bill didn’t make its way into his press release and tweet, no? It’s almost as if he wants his constituents to have the impression that he voted for it, or that this was even his legislation.
 
I fully support the bill so much, I'm voting against it. Tell ya' what mycroft, I'm going to send you fifty grand, sound reasonable? Let me know when you get it.

If you are going to talk the talk, walk the walk.
 
The Dems should be making hay out of this by publicizing the fact of the Reps voting against the bill then taking credit for it. That, and a mountain more of what they don't do. If the other way around, the Reps, smartly, would be jumping all over it. That's the politically right thing to do in oppositional politics. This is total war, and the Dems haven't a clue. I'll admit the notion is creeping up on them. Like a snail.
 
Too bad the gop is so dead set against any kind of social program for we the people. On the bright side, republicans have no problem with our military receiving a trillion a year. The gop cries about spending four trillion on we the people over ten years while in that same time we'll spend over ten trillion for the military without all the weeping from the right.
 

Republicans don’t care about hypocrisy. They care about winning elections and the power that brings. They will adopt whatever position will allow them to do that even if it contradicts other positions they currently hold.

The sooner the Democrats learn that Republicans don’t care about “gotchas” about hypocrisy and start instead playing the same game, the better.
 
Such tweets should include a "Thanks, Biden!" At least somebody is looking out for Palmer's constituents, even if Palmer himself can't be bothered.
 
I don't think Democrats should change to become like Republicans. Integrity and Democracy matters, and upholding the values of The Preamble matters. Democrats should continue to follow the rules. What they must do, is 'GET OUT AND TALK DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE IN SIMPLE LANGUAGE"... That is far better than stooping to the cheating and malicious tactics of Republicanism.

Democrats should do what Obama did with ACA... Invest the detail work, to make sure to Wrap every element of a Bill in details that interlock with one another, so if Republican try to dismantle one part, it only triggers another part that will strengthen what the Republican try to destroy.

I've deal with down and dirty people in the workplace. I don't get down and dirty with them or against them, I keep records of facts and I use the laws to uphold the principles, and in my detail I expose every bit of malice they did. I put in the work to support my position, and as long as I do so with facts that adhere to the principles, they don't have a leg left to stand on, because their agenda was done out of malice.

I'm not saying go to a knife fight with a butter knife. I say, make sure your knife is of superior metal and put in the work to ensure it has been heated to strengthen its temperance. Do what you can to try and avert the fight but know you are prepared if you must defend yourself.
 
What we're seeing here is an extention of the GOP playbook, acting as the party of NO. Before the vote, they engage to weaken a bill, to cut into it. to force comprimises, and get the bill all marked up and weakened so that some republicans say a few nice things about it. Then they vote against the bill they watered down. Then they claim the money and make some excuses.
 
Of course they'll do that.
And they'll credit Trump for the bill passing.
And they'll tell their constituents that the infrastructure was necessary.
Instead of the constituents calling these clowns out on their lie, they clap like seals and vote them in again.

"Did ya hear Trump got the infrastructure bill passed?"
"Really?"
"Yeah, those anti-American libz opposed the bill."
"Wow, no wonder I love Trump more than America."
 
I know it is beyond the pale to understand that supporting certain parts of a bill doesn't equate to supporting ALL the parts.
He cleary supports the actual infrastructure portions, and didn't want to vote for the parts he didn't support.

If anything, this is a good reason to break bills up into easily defined things to be voted on instead of rolling a bunch of things up into one.
 
The Dems literally took all of the the things they want that aren't "actual infrastructure" and put them into a separate piece of legislation that's still being negotiated.

The Dems moved first on a piece of legislation that consisted entirely of hard infrastructure: roads, bridges, rail, airports, ports, waterways, public transit, charging infrastructure, the grid, broadband, drinking water, protection of infrastructure from vulnerability to cyber attacks. This goober voted against it.

Breaking up the bills so that one consisted of easily defined things--infrastructure!--is exactly what they did. Most in the GOP could not have been clearer that they oppose these infrastructure investments. Except at the ribbon cutting!
 
Why shouldn’t he?

It’s not his constituents are going to vote him out for his legerdemain…
 

Taking the high road just means losing and handing power to Republicans.

The ACA is a fantastic example of everything the Democratic Party does wrong: they compromise and water down their principles in order to get Republicans to free with them. They end up with a product no one except insurance companies want and Republicans get a major propaganda victory.
 
Republicans, keeping it hypocritical with every step.
 
Alabama will remain gerrymandered 6-1 gop in the House after the 2022 elections.
 

Mycroft said:
But what made him vote against the bill is all the other added bullshit.
Click to expand...

Except the "added BS " is not in the bill that passed. This is so representative of GOP dishonesty. They keep deliberately convoluting the two bills because they know their constituents are too lazy to find the information themselves. The only information sources they rely on are those which feed their preferred narrative, not ones that focus on the facts.

Everything In The $1.2 Trillion Infrastructure Bill: New Roads, Electric School Buses And More

The sweeping new bill includes $110 billion for roads and bridges, $65 billion to equip all Americans with broadband internet, $1 billion for the Great Lakes and much more.
www.forbes.com
 
Greenbeard said:
The Dems literally took all of the the things they want that aren't "actual infrastructure" and put them into a separate piece of legislation that's still being negotiated.
Click to expand...
A lot of, yes. Clearly not all.
And he evidently didn't like some of these (or other things) being included in what he considered infrastructure.
Greenbeard said:
Breaking up the bills so that one consisted of easily defined things--infrastructure!--is exactly what they did. Most in the GOP could not have been clearer that they oppose these infrastructure investments. Except at the ribbon cutting!
Click to expand...
Trillion dollar proposals are not what I had in mind by easily defined things.
 
Cope said:
And he evidently didn't like some of these (or other things) being included in what he considered infrastructure.
Click to expand...
You seem familiar with his thinking, so which one(s) is he against? Which one(s) are so offensive to "what he considered infrastructure" that he believed semantic integrity was more important than investing in any of these things?

Road?

Bridges?

Rail?

Airports?

Ports?

Waterways?

Public transit?

Charging infrastructure?

The grid?

Broadband?

Drinking water?

Protection of infrastructure from vulnerability to cyber attacks?
 
I have no great insight into his thinking so you'll have to ask him.
What I can see is that bills are incredibly convoluted and unless we are going to read it all, and point by point, discuss the merit or each point, then you are on a fox hunt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…