You talking about this budget deal? House Omnibus VOTE BREAKDOWN: GOP: Yea-150 // Nay-95 DEM: Yea-166 // Nay-18 TOTAL: Yea-316 // Nay-113 Looks like in the House the Dems approved it with 90%+ voting yes, while the Reps only had 61% vote yes. If memory serves me correctly that is about the same percentage the Senate voted.
Wow, that is a seriously weak argument. The GOP leadership and most of the caucus wanted that passed. You are splitting hairs. I would also venture to guess that many who voted against it merely did so because they knew it would pass, anyway, and did not want to be primaried.
Ole' ofay, except that the "begged" question was actually a humorous tweak directed at jetsmets89 given his sweeping, cynical stereotype about a contrarian party serving a., the 'caucasian persuation' and b., the 'uneducated' ........ (the tweak or "begged question" being "process of elmination" based). Capische? That said, as for your follow up question, while having no politically-affiliated skin in this game given that I'm neither a registered dem/reb/lib/con, it is interesting to note that you substitued the word 'reactionary' for jetmets89's 'uneducated.' And yes, while they heretofore catered to the rich and pro-business, it does appear that henceforth the "GOP-exclusive" relationship with the Wall St. fatcats et al will be unraveling albeit only up to a point. As for this coalition you speak of: a. Hillary b. Wall St. c. Obama fundraiser d. Coalition Which doesn't belong and why? ; )
He is going on about the GOP passing a budget that increased the deficit by $800B when in fact the budget was approved with over 90% of the Dems voting yes, yet you say I have a weak argument and am splitting hairs? Many Reps. voiced displeasure with the bill while it was overwhelmingly approved by Dems.. The only way to see it any differently than I do is if you are going for a Dem. spin on the subject. Your guess that many voted against it because it would pass anyway is just that, a guess, with no basis in fact. That being said, the only way they could have been sure it was going to pass was by knowing it had an overwhelming majority of Democrats voting yes. Here is fact, 90% of Dems. voted to pass a budget which, according to Deathstar, adds $800B to the deficit. That same budget had almost 30% less support from Reps.
It has not been reported elsewhere that I can find other than your two highly questionable sources, and HRC has flat out denied it. My understanding is that the Fox report relies on unnamed sources. If you prove correct I will acknowledge that, but I am very skeptical of your sources.
Would the FBI even notify Hillary if it had expanded it's investigation? I wouldn't think they would until they felt the need to. You can dislike Fox all you want. It's a major, legit news source. Breitbart is very right leaning and much smaller but they report a lot of news the major media networks refuse to cover.
The majority of GOP voted to pass it. Yet you want to say it was not a GOP bill. You are aware of the Hastert Rule? Maybe not. And the Dems voted for it because it was good policy. As for the bolded part, you are either uninformed or rather brazen at making ridiculous assertions you know are not true. The phenomenon is known as the "vote no hope yes" caucus, part of the dysfunction of GOP management of the House. In fact a GOP congressman, Tom Cole of Oklahoma, says according to this source that "about one-third of Republicans in the U.S. Congress vote against bills even though they privately hope the bills will pass..." http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/01/17/Rep-Cole-Some-in-GOP-vote-no-hoped-yes/64441358460243/ The process is described as follows: The "Vote No, Hope Yes" Caucus Gets a Scolding from House Leadership In a development that should shock no one, new House speaker Paul Ryan has inherited exactly the same dilemma that bedeviled now-former speaker John Boehner: how to keep the government running without Republican hard-liners poking him with pitchforks. Congress must appropriate money in order for the government to function, but Republican members of Congress don't like to vote for appropriations bills because they're full of things that a potential primary challenger can attack them for supporting—especially since any legislation must be acceptable to Barack Obama in order to be signed into law. This dynamic repeatedly forced Boehner to bring up spending bills at the last minute, often under threats of imminent shutdown or default, and pass them with most Democrats voting yes and most Republicans voting no—a violation of the "Hastert Rule" norm restricting floor access to measures with a support of a majority of the ruling party. The result is a textbook case of a collective action problem. Most Republicans agree that a government shutdown is a bad idea that will hurt their party. Individually, however, they believe that opposing the bill is good politics for themselves. Thus the rise of the "vote no, hope yes" caucus—or, in the words of Homer Simpson, the "Can't Someone Else Do It?" coalition—of Republicans who want these bills to pass even as they personally refuse their support. Of course, this is free-riding to a degree; if no Republicans voted in favor, the bills would fail, so the vote-no-hope-yes group is receiving the benefit of averting a shutdown while letting any political cost fall on their yea-voting colleagues. This behavior prompted a scolding from House Republican whip Steve Scalise, who recently circulated a memo to House Republicans complaining that “Too many in our conference are falling into the pattern of voting no on tough bills while actually hoping the bill passes because they know that the outcome will be even worse if the bill fails.” http://www.honestgraft.com/2015/12/the-vote-no-hope-yes-caucus-gets.html If you don't like that source, just google vote no hope yes caucus. But your argument is ridiculous in any event because in effect you are saying a bill that had majority GOP support is not really a GOP supported bill. As for your no basis in fact assertion, you are not only clearly wrong, I think you owe me an apology. Next time try to be better informed.
Not to derail the topic here, but it's quite often that news outlets report only what fits their agenda. For instance, the recent events in Germany on New Year's Eve were initially reported by Breitbart, I believe, and then spread to other right leaning news outlets. Once the story got really big, CNN and others picked it up as well.
It is not for nothing this story is coming out shortly before the Iowa caucuses. There has been on proof of illegality. No indictment. No trial. No conviction. Just unnamed sources, whoever they might be. I seem to remember you being concerned about due process rights for gun owners. Not so much for the Clinton campaign. Huh? If you don't see why Fox News would want to push this story, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
Are folks really arguing that one side is evil and one side is virtuous? Or more evil or more virtuous? lol. _
Deathstar said "If I was a GOP voter, I'd be pretty pissed at the GOP party as they haven't done anything for the average GOP voter. Last major thing they did was that budget deal that increased the deficit by $800 billion the next decade with its giveaways to all sorts of industries. The GOP party bitches and complains about the debt and deficit...While they control the power of the purse, guess what they do, they deficit spend. It doesn't take an education to figure out that the current GOP establishment is useless." I replied with this You talking about this budget deal? House Omnibus VOTE BREAKDOWN: GOP: Yea-150 // Nay-95 DEM: Yea-166 // Nay-18 TOTAL: Yea-316 // Nay-113 Looks like in the House the Dems approved it with 90%+ voting yes, while the Reps only had 61% vote yes. If memory serves me correctly that is about the same percentage the Senate voted. So where Deathstar attempted to slant this as a Republican measure which added $800B to the deficit, I posted numbers showing it was overwhelmingly approved of by Dems. and that a bit over half Reps. voted yes. I did not give any slant like Deathstar did, I posted numbers. Pretty damn straight forward analysis I thought based on the votes. Let me recap that, Deathstar blamed Reps. for $800B more deficit spending while making no mention of Dems., I pointed out that a much larger percentage of Dems. voted yes for this $800B deficit package than Reps.. For pointing out simple math and the Dems. part in the budget, he asked what my post had to do with his. I guess it was my mistake for figuring most anyone could see the relationship. You then tell me I made a weak argument when all I did was post the voting, by both parties, on the budget. That was not an argument, that was me posting numbers clearly showing Dems. backed the budget just as much if not more than the Reps.. You can try to make an argument that the Reps. were more in favor of it than the Dems. but the numbers do not back that thinking. I realize that members of BOTH PARTIES at times will vote against what they really feel to appease their constituents but you guessed that was what was going on when in fact you have absolutely no way of knowing. You want an apology for me pointing that out? Not going to happen. Just because things have happened in the past, you don't just get to claim that is what happened in this instance with not a piece of supporting evidence. Many Reps. did voice displeasure, whether it was feigned displeasure there is no way of knowing either. You also say that it was good policy and that is where I can see you are swayed more by party, than substance, in your response to me. Instead of telling Deathstar that it was good policy even if there was a large amount of deficit spending you instead decide you need to try and explain to me how my "argument" is weak. I realize he may have been trying to get at Republicans railing against deficit spending but then voting for a budget with more deficit spending but the fact that almost 40% did vote against it seems to show a good deal of reluctance. I saw nothing from him railing against the 90% of Dems. that voted yes to $800B of deficit spending. Edit: Also just checked all my posts and can not see where I claimed it was not a GOP bill.
You seem a bit confused lately. I hope you're not experiencing some kind of health issue. No one said anything about an indictment or a conviction. No one is threatening to take any of Clinton's rights away. This thread is about an FBI investigation that began in August. The new detail is that they're also investigating her for corruption now. The FBI investigation is a real thing whether you think this new detail is fabricated or not. I'll give you that unnamed sources right before Iowa is suspicious. I don't fault anyone for being skeptical about that. I'm not saying it's a fact, but it is being reported by a reputable source. It doesn't seem unreasonable at all to me that the investigation would have turned this way though. The Clinton's Cash details that came out months ago sounded very shady.
