Elections 16/16 members of the house in Florida vote against aid

[Queen B]

Republicans are demons wearing human flesh.. all there's to it. It was probably paired with something they hate, like helping average people.

said thet quiet part out loud

LOL

 

[Fake Doctor]

Not a big mystery here. This was a “must pass bill” to help Florida and a bunch of politicians decided to shove a lot of unrelated spending into it. Spending that would never pass under a regular vote due to lack of support.

Any more details? I've put some effort into trying to unpack these details in this thread and yes, I see a fair bit of pork in there along with no funding for the current disaster... But I also see 18 billion for future disasters that they are voting against in a state where disasters aren't that uncommon. Yes there is pork, but if there is another big hurricane next season, this bill - pork and all - not passing is going to hurt their constituents badly. It's fine to stand on principle, but if this fucks their constituents, I'd expect a very robust case for standing on principle. I'd also expect every one of these figures to be trying to advance legislation that leads to more streamlined bills so they don't have to choose between principle and relief for their state in the future. If they're not doing that, their principles seem pretty empty.

What more, it makes it look a hell of a lot like they're just playing along in the scheme I outlined in post 16. As long as they can say "Well, you would have the relief we voted against if not for those dastardly Democrats!" it really looks like they're just playing into this vicious political cycle for their political benefit.

Again, full disclosure - I'm relatively ignorant on this. That's why I'd prefer for people to come in and make a case (kudos to @Gomi1977 for that) rather than just come in and play out the "My team is awesome! The other team is evil!" so the bullshit can continue. The OP is pointing out something that is rightly a sketchy looking move by these politicians. A comprehensive case defending it would be great right now, rather than just warmed up "pork barrel!" talking points. All I'm asking is that if your team is doing something worthwhile when it looks like they're doing something bad, be able to give some specifics in their defense.

 

[Seano]

Anyone have a link to what was actually voted on?

Edit: Found something on this. Op should really include something like this - and, frankly a lot more. Some context is necessary for a vote that seems so bloody baffling on its face.



From Rick Scott's statement:

"Scott's office pointed to a statement released Friday that said the continuing resolution (CR) in the bill "contains no funding for Florida’s response to Hurricane Ian."

• “Prior to Ian’s development, l made clear that I fully supported the proposed disaster funding for other states," Scott said in a statement.
• "This CR failed to fund the federal government until the new Congress begins in 2023, and that is why I could not support it.”"

Marco Rubio, Rick Scott call for Hurricane Ian relief as Florida GOP votes against FEMA funding (axios.com)

So, it's possible the bill didn't actually help Florida out with hurricane Ian at all. Which puts posts like this in context:




If this disaster relief bill didn't offer anything to Florida at all for the disaster they were staring down the barrel of, it makes sense they'd be urgently asking for aid. If a bill is designed to not include aid for a state facing an imminent natural disaster a state is facing, that could be a big screw you to that state.

But, again, I don't know. The OP didn't post any information on what the bill was or why it was voted down, just a tweet without any context. Would love to see more on this. This vote seems baffling and disturbing, but it's easy to draw that conclusion when there is literally no information provided beyond "men voted against the good things bill. Men don't like good things bill. Men must be bad men."

Its because he read a headline and let his emotions do the rest.

 

[Fake Doctor]

Its because he read a headline and let his emotions do the rest.

Which is obviously the stated intent. I'd like to see more people trying to defend the move. Hell, I have at least tried to understand what seems like a baffling move on its face, but that's hardly a complete defense. Gomi added a lot more helpful context. There has to be more to this story that someone can unpack. This vote looks sketchy and, even if there is a lot of pork in the bill, the bill does offer 18 billion for disaster relief. That's nothing to scoff at, and the people the men in the OP represent might suffer for the lack of that funding. Caricatures like that Skold guy offer are beyond useless, but warmed up talking points with no substance aren't much better.

 

[ShadowRun]

Another complete moron on twitter. AKA a leading democrat.

It seems like a strategy to put something in a bill with many other things knowing your political rivals will reject it and then the media can say “they rejected one issue”

 

[ShadowRun]

Next from the dems we will see a “help homeless bill “
Put 100 billion spending to go to trans surgeries, 50 million aid to Iran, 50 million to colleges to create safe spaces and 10k to homeless shelters. Republicans vote the bill down and then every MSM “ republicans reject feeding homeless”

 

[Snubnoze707]

12 more billion to Ukraine...

 

[Scheme]

Do posts like OP's qualify as misinformation?

 

[Joe]

They vote no because they know theyll still get the aid and get to boast about their conservatice credentials

 

[Gomi1977]

Any more details? I've put some effort into trying to unpack these details in this thread and yes, I see a fair bit of pork in there along with no funding for the current disaster... But I also see 18 billion for future disasters that they are voting against in a state where disasters aren't that uncommon. Yes there is pork, but if there is another big hurricane next season, this bill - pork and all - not passing is going to hurt their constituents badly. It's fine to stand on principle, but if this fucks their constituents, I'd expect a very robust case for standing on principle. I'd also expect every one of these figures to be trying to advance legislation that leads to more streamlined bills so they don't have to choose between principle and relief for their state in the future. If they're not doing that, their principles seem pretty empty.

What more, it makes it look a hell of a lot like they're just playing along in the scheme I outlined in post 16. As long as they can say "Well, you would have the relief we voted against if not for those dastardly Democrats!" it really looks like they're just playing into this vicious political cycle for their political benefit.

Again, full disclosure - I'm relatively ignorant on this. That's why I'd prefer for people to come in and make a case (kudos to @Gomi1977 for that) rather than just come in and play out the "My team is awesome! The other team is evil!" so the bullshit can continue. The OP is pointing out something that is rightly a sketchy looking move by these politicians. A comprehensive case defending it would be great right now, rather than just warmed up "pork barrel!" talking points. All I'm asking is that if your team is doing something worthwhile when it looks like they're doing something bad, be able to give some specifics in their defense.

It's actually the opposite of what the repubs here are regurgitating; the bill that was passed, was a stopgap funding bill, to avert government shutdown. Everything the repubs are complaining about, was already in there. Repubs would rather just shuw down government for political/ mid term reasons, than help their actual constituents that just went through a major natural disaster.

 

[Horse Style]

Step 1: Name the bill something like "Bill to End Childhood Cancer"
Step 2: Have little to nothing in the bill to do with childhood cancer
Step 3: Put all the stuff politicians really want like favorable legislation to their political donors (corporations) and more money for politicians.
Step 4: When the people who actually read the bill thumbs it down, go "See! These people don't want to end childhood cancer!!"

And the same pseudo-intellectual idiots on this forum scream "Chuds!! Evil conservatives!!! REEEEEE!!!" over and over.



For clarification, those steps are for general political manipulation of the masses. I haven't combed through the bill talked about in the OP, but there is a 90%+ chance it fits the mold of what I typed above.

 

[djacobox372]

What exactly was being voted on? Can you please add the bill to the OP? I’d love to know if there was any reason to vote this down.

Sometimes there are good reasons to reject a bill, other times (like the insulin pricing) I’m mystified.

LOL, what? Only headlines and talking points here, who has time for any real context? I sure don't.

 

[Mr Holmes]

$12B more to Ukraine. It just shows what the real priorities are for the globalist controlled democrats.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

politicians should be held accountable. if they vote against it, they should not receive any funding for their district. representatives are there to speak for their constituents. if they're saying they don't want aid, then don't give their districts any aid. but it should be made very clear repeatedly their representative voted against the aid. in fact this standard should be used for each district across the country. make it crystal clear who the bad guys are and consistently broadcast why no aid is reaching your district. accountability for these people would be making sure they can't have their cake and eat it too.

but like always, these bills will still end up passing and theyll still get their funding, and these same assholes who voted against helping their people after a natural disaster will try to take the credit for helping their people after the money shows up.

 

[AWilder]

Step 1: Name the bill something like "Bill to End Childhood Cancer"
Step 2: Have little to nothing in the bill to do with childhood cancer
Step 3: Put all the stuff politicians really want like favorable legislation to their political donors (corporations) and more money for politicians.
Step 4: When the people who actually read the bill thumbs it down, go "See! These people don't want to end childhood cancer!!"

And the same pseudo-intellectual idiots on this forum scream "Chuds!! Evil conservatives!!! REEEEEE!!!" over and over.



For clarification, those steps are for general political manipulation of the masses. I haven't combed through the bill talked about in the OP, but there is a 90%+ chance it fits the mold of what I typed above.

Step one: vote against bill helping your citizens
step two: claim the bill was going to force CRT and trans rights into every Pre-K through 3rd grade.
Step three: claim credit for the bill passing when it turns out the public really likes it and it didn't have anything you lied about.

 

[Horse Style]

Step one: vote against bill helping your citizens
step two: claim the bill was going to force CRT and trans rights into every Pre-K through 3rd grade.
Step three: claim credit for the bill passing when it turns out the public really likes it and it didn't have anything you lied about.

What situation are you talking about exactly? I'd like to know when politicians voted against a bill that explicitly helps their citizens and then lied about "CRT and trans rights" being in the bill.

 

[curryjunkie]

$12B more to Ukraine. It just shows what the real priorities are for the globalist controlled democrats.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

The Republican party is the party of Satan. Enjoy your Karma DeSantis.

 

[Joe]

Its been a rough month for the i dont support russia but...side

 

[AWilder]

What situation are you talking about exactly? I'd like to know when politicians voted against a bill that explicitly helps their citizens and then lied about "CRT and trans rights" being in the bill.

I will as soon as you can show me the exact bill for childhood cancer that has nothing to do with childhood cancer.