How Pelosi Got The Votes

[editec]

Compromise (AKA quid pro quo) voting is standard operating procedure in Congress.

I can't fault those of you who object to it, but let's not pretend that the passage of this bill broke any new ground in political gamesmanship, shall we?

Every one of us, regaardless of what congressional district we hale from, has been the winner and the loser of this political process.

 

[G.T.]

Compromise (AKA quid pro quo) voting is standard operating procedure in Congress.

I can't fault those of you who object to it, but let's not pretend that the passage of this bill broke any new ground in political gamesmanship, shall we?

Every one of us, regaardless of what congressional district we hale from, has been the winner and the loser of this political process.

All it is, is compromise basically. It's one Representative doing his job, and shilling for his District's benefit which is what he was hired to do, in exchange for Voting yaaaaaaaaaaay on a bill which another Representative obviously feels would benefit HIS district.

 

[California Girl]

Still waiting for you to name the corruption laws that were broken here. I asked you to tell me and you're mysteriously silent on that count. That IS the very core reason why you started this thread.....HMMMM??? The CORRUPT ways that Pelosi got the votes?? This is YOUR topic so debate it.

What laws were broken here? Name one.

So as long as it's 'legal', it's ok? Is the word 'ethical' in your dictionary or did the left remove that word and no one told me?

Hey, I'm playing your game here. Name something specific that was done unethically. Name something SPECIFIC. You brought the matter up after all.

Currently, the bill still includes the 'Louisiana Purchase', the 'Gator Aid' and the 'Cornhusker Kickback', does it not?

Also, just for the sake of debate - suppose that I am right and the federal government tried to blackmail the San J Valley with water - is that ethical?

And how about IF Obama has assured the minority congress critters that he will ensure an amnesty for illegal aliens? Is that ethical?

What about any other 'arrangements' that we are not aware of, or do you honestly believe that the federal government has made all the deals and backhanders public?

Further, and my original point, IF these are the deals being done, does that not make our government unethical? Because to me, blackmail, bribery and 'special deals', are unethical.

 

[G.T.]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll167.xml

Look under the N's in the nays column.

 

[California Girl]

Compromise (AKA quid pro quo) voting is standard operating procedure in Congress.

I can't fault those of you who object to it, but let's not pretend that the passage of this bill broke any new ground in political gamesmanship, shall we?

Every one of us, regaardless of what congressional district we hale from, has been the winner and the loser of this political process.

I'm certainly not against compromise but this ain't compromise. This is blackmail and bribery. I am not stupid, I know these are SOP for DC. My point - which seems to be either beyond the comprehension of some, or maybe they just don't like the answer - is should we put up with it or should we demand better standards of behavior from our representatives?

 

[California Girl]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll167.xml

Look under the N's in the nays column.

I see you haven't bothered to read the whole thread.

 

[L.K.Eder]

get some sleep, cally.

 

[Ravi]

Compromise (AKA quid pro quo) voting is standard operating procedure in Congress.

I can't fault those of you who object to it, but let's not pretend that the passage of this bill broke any new ground in political gamesmanship, shall we?

Every one of us, regaardless of what congressional district we hale from, has been the winner and the loser of this political process.

I'm certainly not against compromise but this ain't compromise. This is blackmail and bribery. I am not stupid, I know these are SOP for DC. My point - which seems to be either beyond the comprehension of some, or maybe they just don't like the answer - is should we put up with it or should we demand better standards of behavior from our representatives?

If you're going to throw around accusations of blackmail and bribery you need to come up with some actual evidence. Otherwise, you just come off as a hack...well, that's not a big surprise but there it is.

 

[Ravi]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll167.xml

Look under the N's in the nays column.

I see you haven't bothered to read the whole thread.

Maybe you need to go to a writers workshop and brush up on your writing skilz...hahahaha

 

[G.T.]

umm, this is YOUR quote:

"The vote count was 219 yes. They needed 216. Where did those few extra votes come from? Well, maybe from here....

In the San Joaquin Valley of California, the Federal Government turned off the water to the farmland - America's breadbasket - to 'save' the smelt fish. Remember that?The farmers vs the fish? The fish won, the farmers lost and the valley is dying. 40% unemployment and huge drops in food production. Well, guess who voted 'yes' - against his better judgement? Congressman Devon Nunes. Guess what happened then? The Federal Government turned the water up by 20% instead of the 5% they had previously stated. 2 votes bought and paid for."



I'm pointing out the hole in your theory here: 5 fucking seconds of basic research shows, Nunes Voted No. Not yes, as in your "where did the extra votes come from...maybe here" theory is blown out of the water.

 

[California Girl]

umm, this is YOUR quote:

"The vote count was 219 yes. They needed 216. Where did those few extra votes come from? Well, maybe from here....

In the San Joaquin Valley of California, the Federal Government turned off the water to the farmland - America's breadbasket - to 'save' the smelt fish. Remember that?The farmers vs the fish? The fish won, the farmers lost and the valley is dying. 40% unemployment and huge drops in food production. Well, guess who voted 'yes' - against his better judgement? Congressman Devon Nunes. Guess what happened then? The Federal Government turned the water up by 20% instead of the 5% they had previously stated. 2 votes bought and paid for."



I'm pointing out the hole in your theory here: 5 fucking seconds of basic research shows, Nunes Voted No. Not yes, as in your "where did the extra votes come from...maybe here" theory is blown out of the water.

I already said, when I checked how he was voting, it was before the vote. The principle remains the same. If the Federal Government held the water supply over the heads of Californian representatives, is that ethical? Do we want our government blackmailing our representatives for political gain?

Is the concept too complex for you?

 

[L.K.Eder]

devin nunes is a republican.

 

[VaYank5150]

So, here we are. Pelosi got the votes to pass ObamaCare. Some time ago, I started asking around - because I was curious, and because I can - about how those votes were being 'achieved'.

Here is stuff I know, that I haven't seen in the media. Now, I appreciate that the rabids will scream for links but I don't link to the media to back up facts - cuz I know the media and the media and facts are not comfortable bedfellows. Truthfully, I don't care whether people believe me or not, but wait and watch.

The vote count was 219 yes. They needed 216. Where did those few extra votes come from? Well, maybe from here....

In the San Joaquin Valley of California, the Federal Government turned off the water to the farmland - America's breadbasket - to 'save' the smelt fish. Remember that?The farmers vs the fish? The fish won, the farmers lost and the valley is dying. 40% unemployment and huge drops in food production. Well, guess who voted 'yes' - against his better judgement? Congressman Devon Nunes. Guess what happened then? The Federal Government turned the water up by 20% instead of the 5% they had previously stated. 2 votes bought and paid for.

The Immigration issue is the other one. Obama promised the amnesty in return for healthcare votes. I commented on this a few days ago. Look at the timing of the Amnesty march in DC. 2 votes bought - IOU by Obama.

Now, I know, as most reasonable people know, that this is nothing new. It is 'politics as usual'. But.... given that Obama said he was going to clean up Washington, and that his Presidency would be open and transparent, with no special interests, no lobbyists, no back room deals etc.....

Putting the healthcare thing to one side.... and trying to leave the partisanship at the door..... My questions are:

Is it not time that that our congressmen voted in accordance with the view of their district? Is it not time that we said it is no longer acceptable to blackmail, force, bribe or cajole votes from congressmen who were elected by us to serve us?

I am tired of the 'we've always done it this way', 'you're just pissed cuz you lost' and the constant shit from both sides. I just think we as Americans deserve better. I guess I'm still young enough to be idealistic along with my usual cynicism.

What a whiney little bitch you are. You say you are "still young enough"....how young are you? Do you ALWAYS throw temper tantrums when you don't get your way? This is politics. If you can't handle it, go to another message board where we don't have to watch you cry about everything...

 

[G.T.]

I already said, when I checked how he was voting, it was before the vote. The principle remains the same. If the Federal Government held the water supply over the heads of Californian representatives, is that ethical? Do we want our government blackmailing our representatives for political gain?

Is the concept too complex for you?

It's called compromise. Like you said, the fish had already won. That means, the Government wasn't holding the water supply over anyone's head.............they were simply keeping with what's already passed, in regard to said policy (thus dismissing this being blackmail if you know the def.)..... and they wetre offering a compromise on said (previous**) policy shall the Congressman consider changing his mind in favor of Healthcare reform for Americans.

You need to learn basic definitions. That's not blackmail, it's compromise. The fishies won, the fishies won zomg.

 

[G.T.]

I already said, when I checked how he was voting, it was before the vote. The principle remains the same. If the Federal Government held the water supply over the heads of Californian representatives, is that ethical? Do we want our government blackmailing our representatives for political gain?

Is the concept too complex for you?

And that (highlighted) is not supported by facts. Since, you know, polling trends as stated by so many of the GOP show this would HURT politically.

 

[California Girl]

I already said, when I checked how he was voting, it was before the vote. The principle remains the same. If the Federal Government held the water supply over the heads of Californian representatives, is that ethical? Do we want our government blackmailing our representatives for political gain?

Is the concept too complex for you?

It's called compromise. Like you said, the fish had already won. That means, the Government wasn't holding the water supply over anyone's head.............they were simply keeping with what's already passed, in regard to said policy (thus dismissing this being blackmail if you know the def.)..... and they wetre offering a compromise on said (previous**) policy shall the Congressman consider changing his mind in favor of Healthcare reform for Americans.

You need to learn basic definitions. That's not blackmail, it's compromise. The fishies won, the fishies won zomg.

Perhaps I see the resulting 40% unemployment in the area as more important than you do. To me, it really isn't about 'winning' and 'losing'.... sure, I am against the bill... but I am far more concerned about the way the bill was 'won'.

I am kind of idealistic, in that I believe that politics should not be treated as a 'game' to be 'won' or 'lost'. I don't believe that any government should use tactics such as these to try to get their way. Maybe I take the whole concept more seriously than some.

You seem to think a 'debate' means deriding what you cannot argue against.

 

[L.K.Eder]

here is a pic of cally doing research and getting verifiable information from sources way past her bedtime.

 

[VaYank5150]

Compromise (AKA quid pro quo) voting is standard operating procedure in Congress.

I can't fault those of you who object to it, but let's not pretend that the passage of this bill broke any new ground in political gamesmanship, shall we?

Every one of us, regaardless of what congressional district we hale from, has been the winner and the loser of this political process.

I'm certainly not against compromise but this ain't compromise. This is blackmail and bribery. I am not stupid, I know these are SOP for DC. My point - which seems to be either beyond the comprehension of some, or maybe they just don't like the answer - is should we put up with it or should we demand better standards of behavior from our representatives?

If you're going to throw around accusations of blackmail and bribery you need to come up with some actual evidence. Otherwise, you just come off as a hack...well, that's not a big surprise but there it is.

Oh please...Cali doesn't just come off as a hack...she IS a hack. Period.

 

[California Girl]

It is interesting how so few are concerned with the concepts of ethical behavior in politics. I am slightly disappointed, but not surprised. I am heartened though, that it is the left who seem to have no issue with dishonesty. I take heart in that.

It's also fascinating how few are able to see beyond the simplistic to the more complex issues surrounding the example of the potential deal for amnesty for illegals, and the water in the San J Valley. Stupid comments like 'the fish won', like that is the end of it, are worriesome to anyone with the ability to see past the partisanship and into the issues.

 

[G.T.]

I already said, when I checked how he was voting, it was before the vote. The principle remains the same. If the Federal Government held the water supply over the heads of Californian representatives, is that ethical? Do we want our government blackmailing our representatives for political gain?

Is the concept too complex for you?

It's called compromise. Like you said, the fish had already won. That means, the Government wasn't holding the water supply over anyone's head.............they were simply keeping with what's already passed, in regard to said policy (thus dismissing this being blackmail if you know the def.)..... and they wetre offering a compromise on said (previous**) policy shall the Congressman consider changing his mind in favor of Healthcare reform for Americans.

You need to learn basic definitions. That's not blackmail, it's compromise. The fishies won, the fishies won zomg.

Perhaps I see the resulting 40% unemployment in the area as more important than you do. To me, it really isn't about 'winning' and 'losing'.... sure, I am against the bill... but I am far more concerned about the way the bill was 'won'.

I am kind of idealistic, in that I believe that politics should not be treated as a 'game' to be 'won' or 'lost'. I don't believe that any government should use tactics such as these to try to get their way. Maybe I take the whole concept more seriously than some.

You seem to think a 'debate' means deriding what you cannot argue against.

You're the one framing it as a game, and winning and losing, etc. I didn't say any of that.


The "tactics" such as these you're providing in your examples are not unethical whatsoever. They (allegedly by you) offered him a compromise for his district in exchange for what the notorious "they" felt was him offering a compromise for their district. It's bartering, it's not blackmail and it's not bribery. Again, you simply need to become familiar with the definitions.

That, and the fact he didn't even take the deal to benefit his district and alleviate some of that unemployment problem you "claim" was caused by the water policy, and a double banger voted against a bill that would HELP small businesses in that it's now a fuck-ton easier and less expensive for them to offer employees health insurance because of the open exchange.