478
Republicans keep voting for bills they say they don't like (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The move represents a trend in Congress during Donald Trump's second term. Republican lawmakers across the ideological spectrum keep casting votes in favor of bills even while warning that they’re deeply flawed and may require fixing down the road. In some cases, lawmakers explicitly threaten to vote “no” on bills before eventually folding and voting “yes.”

It isn’t unusual for lawmakers to back legislation they call imperfect. But this year, that contrast has become more stark. It comes as Trump has solidified his grasp over the GOP base, resulting in lawmakers growing increasingly leery of crossing him and risking their political futures.

Nowhere has that dynamic been more pronounced than with the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, whose members have repeatedly threatened to oppose bills before acquiescing under pressure from Trump. With Trump's megabill, they complained about red ink: It's expected to add $3.3 trillion to the national debt over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

There needs to be legal and political repercussions for politicians lying or misrepresenting the truth. Doesn't matter if they didn't mean to, then they should've done better research.

Political repercussions? Absolutely. Legal repercussions, without a need to demonstrate that the lack of truth was intentional? Answer me this: If there were legal repercussions for lying, would the current administration be able use it to substantially burden and damage politicians that stand in it's way? What would prevent them from doing that? How can we ensure that it isn't used to enforce the often referenced concept of a "Ministry of Truth" in a dystopian future not unlike this one?

I just don't think people can handle the responsibility of formally bestowing that kind of power on a government and then ensuring it is filled with people who will not use it for their own ends.

For the last decade I've had my faith in humanity shattered inch by inch, ignored scandal by ignored scandal. I kept thinking "Oh, this, this must open their eyes to what's really happening. There is no way they can ignore such a obvious disconnect with truth and reality!" Ten years later, and I'm watching the Supreme Court dismantle a century or more of legal progress. I'm watching Congress gut funding to programs that our most disenfranchised fellow citizens rely on to survive, enrich the wealthiest citizens, and create a gestapo of loyal racist shitbags. I'm watching both political parties attack the protest of a genocide by an allied country.

The most upset I've seen the country at Trump is right now. Why? Not because anything I already mentioned. It's because even though Trump was Epstein's best friend for a long time... and even though last time Trump was president he let Epstein die while under close watch... we're just absolutely shocked that Trump is now claiming the documentation Epstein was keeping on all the friends and clients he helped rape children isn't worth pursuing and doesn't even exist.

No. I don't think we can handle the responsibility of empowering people the police the truth. I don't know how to even get us to the point where we can know what's true anymore.

Edit: Scratch that last bit. I think the answer is to severely limit wealth and power. If you are rich and powerful enough, you can define what is fact and what is true. That needs to be prevented. Tax the excess, or fucking burn it - I don't care at this point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    A "Ministry of Truth" only works when a force controls all the information and, if global sources of information are controlled the discussion feels moot (from a "putting checks to the government" standpoint).

    And absolutely. Corporations legally being people and being "entitled" to "free speech using money" has to be obliterated. It's farcical on its face and enables billionaires to multi-dip on stealing from the populace by siphon away their money and then using those immorally-obtained funds to have an outsized representation as the discretionary force of corporations.

    You know how corporations can have a voice? By the people who work in that corporation voting like they already are able to do. That's it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent