You mean like every single bill the democrats are wasting time with in the house when they know the senate and/or Trump won't pass? Seriously, you make some good points some times but the hypocrisy can be extra cringe worthy.
Question to stephen of redsteeze, or anyone else that wanted this vote... if senators all had voted yes, what would have happened? What would have been the results of that vote?
It was just a cloture vote so they would of have still had to vote on the actual bill. If they voted for cloture and then passed it once it came up for an actual vote, the end result would be a veto by Trump.
There is a bill? But what would happen if they voted on "the actual bill"?, what would trump be vetoing? And if he didn't veto it, what would happen?
Well if the House and Senate both passed it trump could either sign it, veto it, or do nothing. If he does nothing, I think they refer to that as a pocket veto. Of course they could still override a veto if they meet the standards set forth in the Constitution. Edit: If this had a prayer of passing the turtle would not have put it up for a cloture vote.
I realize mcconnell wasn't calling for a vote that he had a chance of passing (hence the phrase, a show vote). And while I suspect republicans would simply say "well, Democrats would do the same"), the question still remains, shouldn't the senate be working on actual bills, actual solutions? How does this answer Americans who think congress should actually work on solutions and work together? But all that said, isn't GND a referendum, not a bill, and as such "passing it" doesn't actually do anything? And... if congress really does want to protect the environment (I know I do... its even part of my religious beliefs), shouldn't they actually address those in actual bills? Instead of doing things to simply "own the libs/cons"?
I get your point but it is it any different than the House working on things that have zero chance of passing in the Senate or ones they know will be vetoed? It is political theater and both sides engage in it.
The answer to those Americans from Mitch McConnell and his enablers is basically "**** YOU" for the last 10 years. He has said this explicitly - he serves the party, not the country.
lol, this from the guy who posted this gem a while back. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/atlantic-the-case-for-impeachment-now.295796/
David Cameron says hello. The bill only discusses what Congress 'should' do. So nothing would happen anyway. The whole point was to signal what politicians believe in and stand for, so I think Democrats should vote for it, even if it was just a cynical political stunt to gather campaign material for later. Btw, Lamar Alexander (R) unveiled his "New Manhattan Project" yesterday with many of the same goals as the GND, but with a more defined, and more modest, vehicle -- government funding of research. Here's an interview with him. I have been very critical of the GND in this thread, but as a resolution meant to make clean energy an issue and to spark debate, it looks to me like it totally worked. Here we now have a Republican senator offering his own solution to climate change in response to AOC's Green New Deal. Maybe, at some point we'll get a bipartisan bill to advance solutions that are both achievable and significant. Btw, I also hate Alexander's approach. One, where AOC's proposal was laughably too ambitious, Alexander's is laughably not ambitious enough. We kinda need government to drive action now, not research. And two, he's relying on nuclear to save the day -- an idea that is common and popular, but I consider it yesterday's technology.
She is extremely gifted at social media. People can mock her positions (as I have) but she has an extremely high IQ when it comes to controlling media, manipulating the message and exposing other people. She also is capable of making people think she is directly talking to them. It will be very interesting to see what her future holds. Perhaps others will simply copy her or in her generation will be even better at it, but right now she is fairly unique in her style and presentation.
I just don't see it that way. Granted, my opinion only applies to me, but in my eyes, she's a buffoon and an idiot. Her retorts are Pee Wee Hermanesque. I could go on to elaborate further, but I don't care to give her any more thought than I already have.
I'm not surprised you do, and I am not saying your view or opinion is not valid..... but you are also an older white male, and not anywhere near her demographic. There are several generations separating you and her.
I think she gets even more right wing media coverage trying to paint her as the face of the Democrats. And yes, I agree with your buffoon description.
