Burn Pit Bill blocked ...

[Axtremus]

@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

You have not supplied your own good faith justification for why the bill votes were changed.

I do not see any good faith justification for the GOP Senators to change their June 16 “yea” votes to their July 27 “nay” votes. If they think there are good faith justifications for then to change their votes between June 16 and July 27, let them articulate those reasons and we can judge whether their reasons pass muster.

Are you ignoring the reasoning already given? Claiming that it's a lie, or impossible?

According to the handwavy narrative that you refuse to own but will still propagate, they must have reconsidered how much they care about wounded military personnel between June 16 and July 27. Right? That's your Occam's razor?

Maybe they have, maybe they haven’t. I’m not going to justify it for them. Let them justify why they changed their votes.

The justification was already given upthread in a tweet from a congressperson.

Which congressperson?

If you're referring to Sen. Toomey, he voted "nay" on June 16 and he voted "nay" again on July 27 -- he's actually the consistent one.

The Senators who voted "yea" on June 16 and then voted "nay" on July 27 are:

Sen. Barrasso
Sen. Blackburn
Sen. Blunt
Sen. Braun
Sen. Cassidy
Sen. Cornyn
Sen. Cotton
Sen. Cramer
Sen. Cruz
Sen. Ernst
Sen. Fischer
Sen. Hagerty
Sen. Hawley
Sen. Hyde-smith
Sen. Johnson
Sen. Inhofe
Sen. Kennedy
Sen. Marshall
Sen. McConnell
Sen. Portman
Sen. Sasse
Sen. Scott, Rick
Sen. Scott, Tim
Sen. Sullivan
Sen. Young

Let them justify why they changed their votes, then we see whether their justifications pass muster.

Sausage getting made behind the scenes, coalitions being formed, bills being scrutinized, etc.

It is not difficult to reach a threshold of plausibility above your narrative that they changed their mind about how much they care about wounded military. I'm actually a little surprised at how dug into your disingenuousness you've gotten in this thread. You usually retreat by now. I would be careful, this sort of stuff can become habit, and you don't want to be a guy who simply doesn't care whether you're being honest.

Maybe you're happy with same hand-wavy sausage making metaphor, maybe you're happy with with some ad hominem attack. I am not.

[Horace]

@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

You have not supplied your own good faith justification for why the bill votes were changed.

I do not see any good faith justification for the GOP Senators to change their June 16 “yea” votes to their July 27 “nay” votes. If they think there are good faith justifications for then to change their votes between June 16 and July 27, let them articulate those reasons and we can judge whether their reasons pass muster.

Are you ignoring the reasoning already given? Claiming that it's a lie, or impossible?

According to the handwavy narrative that you refuse to own but will still propagate, they must have reconsidered how much they care about wounded military personnel between June 16 and July 27. Right? That's your Occam's razor?

Maybe they have, maybe they haven’t. I’m not going to justify it for them. Let them justify why they changed their votes.

The justification was already given upthread in a tweet from a congressperson.

Which congressperson?

If you're referring to Sen. Toomey, he voted "nay" on June 16 and he voted "nay" again on July 27 -- he's actually the consistent one.

The Senators who voted "yea" on June 16 and then voted "nay" on July 27 are:

Sen. Barrasso
Sen. Blackburn
Sen. Blunt
Sen. Braun
Sen. Cassidy
Sen. Cornyn
Sen. Cotton
Sen. Cramer
Sen. Cruz
Sen. Ernst
Sen. Fischer
Sen. Hagerty
Sen. Hawley
Sen. Hyde-smith
Sen. Johnson
Sen. Inhofe
Sen. Kennedy
Sen. Marshall
Sen. McConnell
Sen. Portman
Sen. Sasse
Sen. Scott, Rick
Sen. Scott, Tim
Sen. Sullivan
Sen. Young

Let them justify why they changed their votes, then we see whether their justifications pass muster.

Sausage getting made behind the scenes, coalitions being formed, bills being scrutinized, etc.

It is not difficult to reach a threshold of plausibility above your narrative that they changed their mind about how much they care about wounded military. I'm actually a little surprised at how dug into your disingenuousness you've gotten in this thread. You usually retreat by now. I would be careful, this sort of stuff can become habit, and you don't want to be a guy who simply doesn't care whether you're being honest.

Maybe you're happy with same hand-wavy sausage making metaphor, maybe you're happy with with some ad hominem attack. I am not.

No, you prefer your ad homs to be tribal, unjustifiable, and a force for destruction and stupidity on a larger scale. I prefer to call it as it clearly is, on a case by case basis. In this case, a justification has already been given by a senator, and he even said that if this change was made, the same votes would be there as in the original bill. He would be in a position to know that. Meanwhile, you remain dug into your dishonesty (you are not this stupid), awaiting justifications from each individual senator, swearing up and down, hands on a bible, that they do actually care about wounded military personnel. Thanks for playing.

[Axtremus]

@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

In this case, a justification has already been given by a senator, and he even said that if this change was made, the same votes would be there as in the original bill.

Which Senator, what justification specifically are you talking about?

If you are still hung up on Sen. Toomey's "reclassification" justification, that will not work for the other 25 Senators who voted "yea" with that "reclassification" on June 16. A Senator who voted "yea" on June 16 would indeed be disingenuous and self-contradictory to invoke Toomey's "reclassification" justification to vote "nay" on July 27, for the "reclassification" was already part of the bill they voted on on June 16.

In any case, one Senator cannot speak for another Senator, one Senator is not responsible for the speech by another Senator. It is only proper to expect each Senator to justify his own vote.

[Horace]

@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

In this case, a justification has already been given by a senator, and he even said that if this change was made, the same votes would be there as in the original bill.

Which Senator, what justification specifically are you talking about?

If you are still hung up on Sen. Toomey's "reclassification" justification, that will not work for the other 25 Senators who voted "yea" with that "reclassification" on June 16. A Senator who voted "yea" on June 16 would indeed be disingenuous and self-contradictory to invoke Toomey's "reclassification" justification to vote "nay" on July 27, for the "reclassification" was already part of the bill they voted on on June 16.

In any case, one Senator cannot speak for another Senator, one Senator is not responsible for the speech by another Senator. It is only proper to expect each Senator to justify his own vote.

Again, coalitions being formed, sausage getting made, a bill being scrutinized for an organized effort to vote against it, for certain organized reasons. Obviously more plausible than your good vs evil tribal narrative where the bad guys don't care about military personnel. A narrative that you won't even own, but continue to pretend is the most plausible explanation.

[Axtremus]

@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

Again, coalitions being formed, sausage getting made, a bill being scrutinized for an organized effort to vote against it, for certain organized reasons.

I see you're back to hand-waxing about sausage making. What "organized reasons" do you have in mind?

A narrative that you won't even own, but continue to pretend is the most plausible explanation.

What? Now you try to build a straw man and put it on me?

[Horace]

@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

Again, coalitions being formed, sausage getting made, a bill being scrutinized for an organized effort to vote against it, for certain organized reasons.

I see you're back to hand-waxing about sausage making. What "organized reasons" do you have in mind?

The organized reasons already given by the senator, along with his belief that if the reasons for the opposition to the bill were addressed, the original votes would be there. Those reasons are unrelated to money spent to care for military personnel. The evidence we do have, directly contradicts your narrative. And your narrative started out as transparently tribal and implausible.

[Axtremus]

@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

Again, coalitions being formed, sausage getting made, a bill being scrutinized for an organized effort to vote against it, for certain organized reasons.

I see you're back to hand-waxing about sausage making. What "organized reasons" do you have in mind?

The organized reasons already given by the senator, ...

Care to name senator to whom you refer?

[Horace]

@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

Again, coalitions being formed, sausage getting made, a bill being scrutinized for an organized effort to vote against it, for certain organized reasons.

I see you're back to hand-waxing about sausage making. What "organized reasons" do you have in mind?

The organized reasons already given by the senator, ...

Care to name senator to whom you refer?

The one from upthread, the one we've been discussing.

[Horace]

If one were engaged in a search for a morally culpable party for the fact that this bill was blocked, one might consider the names of the senators who added the pork, daring the Republicans to block it, given the optics.

I mean, if one were actually engaged in a search for some moral culpability.

[George K]

I remember reading posts by a former member of TNCR who always commented (and still does on social media, last time I checked) that "Republicans are evil."

I would love to see anything confirming that the blockage of this bill is motivated by the assertion that Republicans don't want veterans to get benefits. It was an 84-14 vote originally.

I asked before, with no response...what changed? Did the GOP senators suddenly become mustache-twirling evil-doers?

Or, was it something else?

[Horace]

@George-K said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

I remember reading posts by a former member of TNCR who always commented (and still does on social media, last time I checked) that "Republicans are evil."

I would love to see anything confirming that the blockage of this bill is motivated by the assertion that Republicans don't want veterans to get benefits. It was an 84-14 vote originally.

I asked before, with no response...what changed? Did the GOP senators suddenly become mustache-twirling evil-doers?

Or, was it something else?

Ax is stuck on the fact that whatever changed, changed before the original vote, and this bill that got blocked was substantially identical. I don't doubt that, but there was a change, presumably before the original vote, which caused a few GOP senators to vote against it, and between the first vote and the second, they were presumably able to build a coalition around their reasons. Which the sane among us do not think had to do with cold hearted disdain for the needs of wounded military. They claim it was because of pork that has nothing to do with caring for the military wounded. I guess the Axs and Jon Stewarts of the world just have to assume they are lying. Which, in fairness, makes perfect sense, in a childish worldview of good vs evil.

[89th]

What's a near half-trillion dollars amongst friends?

[taiwan_girl]

Nothing changed in the bill. The Republicans got together and decided anything proposed by the Democrats was bad, so they had to vote against it.

Not surprising, because the Democrats would do the same thing.

It will interesting next year when the Republicans have the majority, and then they will complain that the Democrats are holding up bills, voting against them, etc.

And the Democrats will try and take some sort of moral argument when the only real reason is that the bill was proposed by the Republicans.

[Horace]

The last three times Stewart has popped up on my radar have been pure stupid. There was one diatribe against the stock market which indicated zero understanding of anything to do with money, and which would only serve to keep the ignorant poor, ignorant and poor. There was the Roe reaction, where Mr Stewart led a panel of progressive women as they play acted like they were in a bunker hiding from fascists who were coming for each of them. No acknowledgment that the legal case is arguably sound that it should be left to the states. Just pure moral conviction and terror that the conservatives are coming for all Good people. Now there is this. The man lives in a very simple world. I think he prefers it that way. He is like a child playing cops and robbers.

[Horace]

@taiwan_girl said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

Nothing changed in the bill. The Republicans got together and decided anything proposed by the Democrats was bad, so they had to vote against it.

That’s probably not quite as nuanced as it could be. There is room, even within a both sides are equal worldview, to acknowledge details like the fact that the bill had pork attached, which had nothing to do with the nominal purpose of the bill. The parts of the bill that had to do with helping military personnel would have passed, at least according to the senator who took the floor and spoke for the opposition.

[George K]

@taiwan_girl said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

Nothing changed in the bill. The Republicans got together and decided anything proposed by the Democrats was bad, so they had to vote against it.

THat's patently not true. The bill passed by a vote of 84-14 in its original form. That means there was significant Republican support. After it came back from the House, it was, according to the GOP, bloated beyond the original intent.

[taiwan_girl]

@Horace I get that. But my understanding is the same as Ax's.

The bill that passed with 84 votes is pretty much the same as the one that was rejected.

Either
A. The staff did not do their homework the first time and did not do a good summary of the bill for the senators
B. A memo from leadership went around that said that Republican senators should not work with Democratic senators on bills
C. The Republican senators feel there is some political gain by voting against it.
D. Combination of all of the above

[Axtremus]

@George-K said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

The bill passed by a vote of 84-14 in its original form. That means there was significant Republican support. After it came back from the House, it was, according to the GOP, bloated beyond the original intent.

None of the senators who changed their votes between June 16 (when the bill passed by a vote of 84-14) and July 27 (when 25 GOP senators changed their votes from "yeas" to "nays") manage to identify where or what "bloat" has supposedly been added between the June 16 version and the July 27 version of the bill.

I want these 25 senators who changed their votes to point out exactly what changed between June 16 and July 27 for them to change their votes.

[Horace]

@taiwan_girl said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@Horace I get that. But my understanding is the same as Ax's.

The bill that passed with 84 votes is pretty much the same as the one that was rejected.

Either
A. The staff did not do their homework the first time and did not do a good summary of the bill for the senators
B. A memo from leadership went around that said that Republican senators should not work with Democratic senators on bills
C. The Republican senators feel there is some political gain by voting against it.
D. Combination of all of the above

Yes that’s all potentially correct, and what I would consider good faith guesses about why the votes changed. None of those guesses came from Ax. He was content with the “Republicans hate military burn victims” narrative. The GOP opposition opposed the pork in the bill, according to them. Another good faith guess that could be added to your list, would be that the GOP senators had principled reasons, which would be backed by their unequivocally pro-military constituency, to oppose the pork shenanigans included in this bill by Democrats who, knowing the optics, dared the GOP to block it. Challenge apparently accepted. Now we all choose which part we play in our understanding of what just happened. Where do the useful idiots fall on this one? Where do the nuanced realists fall? You be the judge!

[Horace]

@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

@George-K said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:

The bill passed by a vote of 84-14 in its original form. That means there was significant Republican support. After it came back from the House, it was, according to the GOP, bloated beyond the original intent.

None of the senators who changed their votes between June 16 (when the bill passed by a vote of 84-14) and July 27 (when 25 GOP senators changed their votes from "yeas" to "nays") manage to identify where or what "bloat" has supposedly been added between the June 16 version and the July 27 version of the bill.

I want these 25 senators who changed their votes to point out exactly what changed between June 16 and July 27 for them to change their votes.

You can want anything you like. The opposition to the bill has been spoken for by the presumed leader of it, whose vote never changed. The fact is, you have good information about the reasons for the change, but you prefer the stench of the good vs evil narrative, so you choose to ignore that information.