Politics as Usual

task0778

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2017
12,247
11,350
2,265
Texas hill country
Yesterday the GOP brought up a police reform bill in the US Senate for debate. That's it, nothing more than a vote to talk about the Republican effort to address police reform. The vote requires 60 votes to begin the debate on the bill, but the Democrats blocked it. They said the bill was so bad they couldn't even consider it, couldn't even consider making any changes to it.

NOTE: the bill also requires 60 votes to close debate and vote on passing the bill. If the Dems didn't like the results, they could've blocked it then. But no, they had to block it now. Why? Because then it looks like the GOP tried to do something about police reform. Cant have that if you're a Democrat, so they blocked the debate from even beginning.

Senator Schumer sent a letter to Leader McConnell saying the Dems wanted 5 things in the bill that had to be changed. So Senator Tim Scott, who wrote the bill, goes to McConnell and they agree to vote on the 5 Amendments. Scott goes back to the Dems who say there's not just 5, there's 20. So make 20 Amendments to the bill during the debate, that's how it's supposed to work. We want this, you want that, let's make a deal. Didn't happen, the Dems wouldn't even talk about it. Why?

Answer: because it was a Republican bill. "The actual problem is not what is being offered. It is who is offering it. Took me a long time to figure out the most obvious thing in the room. It's not they what," Scott said.

"What I missed in this issue is that the stereotyping of Republicans is just as toxic and poison to the outcomes of the most vulnerable communities in this nation. That's the issue. When Speaker Pelosi says one of the most heinous things I can imagine: that the Republicans are actually trying to cover up murder, the murder of George Floyd with our legislation, that's not politics. That's not a game to win. That's you lose."

Here's the thing: Scott understands that the real reason why Senate Democrats rejected debate on the bill is because they don’t want to give the Republicans and Trump any sort of legislative victory at a time when Democrats are trying to score all the racially-charged political points they can in a critical election year. IOW, they put the good of their party ahead of the good for the country and the people who need police reform the most. How much better would it be for all of us if Congress could pass a bipartisan police reform bill? Now, not next January.

This is the link to Senator Scott's speech on the Senate floor yesterday. I ain't going to say the GOP doesn't do the same thing sometimes. There are times when one party just cannot agree to what the other one wants to do, it's too antithetical to what they stand for. I get that, but this police reform bill is not that kind of thing, it could've and should've have been a bipartisan effort to do something good for the country for a change. Sad that it didn't happen.

 
Last edited:
Yesterday the GOP brought up a police reform bill in the US Senate for debate. That's it, nothing more than a vote to talk about the Republican effort to address police reform. The vote requires 60 votes to begin the debate on the bill, but the Democrats blocked it. They said the bill was so bad they couldn't even consider it, couldn't even consider making any changes to it.

NOTE: the bill also requires 60 votes to close debate and vote on passing the bill. If the Dems didn't like the results, they could've blocked it then. But no, they had to block it now. Why? Because then it looks like the GOP tried to do something about police reform. Cant have that if you're a Democrat, so they blocked the debate from even beginning.

Senator Schumer sent a letter to Leader McConnell saying the Dems wanted 5 things in the bill that had to be changed. So Senator Tim Scott, who wrote the bill, goes to McConnell and they agree to make the 5 Amendments. Scott goes back to the Dems who say there's not just 5, there's 20. So make 20 Amendments to the bill during the debate, that's how it's supposed to work. We want this, you want that, let's make a deal. Didn't happen, the Dems wouldn't even talk about it. Why?

Answer: because it was a Republican bill. "The actual problem is not what is being offered. It is who is offering it. Took me a long time to figure out the most obvious thing in the room. It's not they what," Scott said.

"What I missed in this issue is that the stereotyping of Republicans is just as toxic and poison to the outcomes of the most vulnerable communities in this nation. That's the issue. When Speaker Pelosi says one of the most heinous things I can imagine: that the Republicans are actually trying to cover up murder, the murder of George Floyd with our legislation, that's not politics. That's not a game to win. That's you lose."

Here's the thing: Scott understands that the real reason why Senate Democrats rejected debate on the bill is because they don’t want to give the Republicans and Trump any sort of legislative victory at a time when Democrats are trying to score all the racially-charged political points they can in a critical election year. IOW, they put the good of their party ahead of the good for the country and the people who need police reform the most. How much better would it be for all of us if Congress could pass a bipartisan police reform bill? Now, not next January.

This is the link to Senator Scott's speech on the Senate floor yesterday. I ain't going to say the GOP doesn't do the same thing sometimes. There are times when one party just cannot agree to what the other one wants to do, it's too antithetical to what they stand for. I get that, but this police reform bill is not that kind of thing, it could've and should've have been a bipartisan effort to do something good for the country for a change. Sad that it didn't happen.


Okay. But my understanding was that the House Democrats came up with a bill that went to the Senate, and apparently the Senate would not entertain it, had to come up with their own.

Is that also true?
 
Yesterday the GOP brought up a police reform bill in the US Senate for debate. That's it, nothing more than a vote to talk about the Republican effort to address police reform. The vote requires 60 votes to begin the debate on the bill, but the Democrats blocked it. They said the bill was so bad they couldn't even consider it, couldn't even consider making any changes to it.

NOTE: the bill also requires 60 votes to close debate and vote on passing the bill. If the Dems didn't like the results, they could've blocked it then. But no, they had to block it now. Why? Because then it looks like the GOP tried to do something about police reform. Cant have that if you're a Democrat, so they blocked the debate from even beginning.

Senator Schumer sent a letter to Leader McConnell saying the Dems wanted 5 things in the bill that had to be changed. So Senator Tim Scott, who wrote the bill, goes to McConnell and they agree to make the 5 Amendments. Scott goes back to the Dems who say there's not just 5, there's 20. So make 20 Amendments to the bill during the debate, that's how it's supposed to work. We want this, you want that, let's make a deal. Didn't happen, the Dems wouldn't even talk about it. Why?

Answer: because it was a Republican bill. "The actual problem is not what is being offered. It is who is offering it. Took me a long time to figure out the most obvious thing in the room. It's not they what," Scott said.

"What I missed in this issue is that the stereotyping of Republicans is just as toxic and poison to the outcomes of the most vulnerable communities in this nation. That's the issue. When Speaker Pelosi says one of the most heinous things I can imagine: that the Republicans are actually trying to cover up murder, the murder of George Floyd with our legislation, that's not politics. That's not a game to win. That's you lose."

Here's the thing: Scott understands that the real reason why Senate Democrats rejected debate on the bill is because they don’t want to give the Republicans and Trump any sort of legislative victory at a time when Democrats are trying to score all the racially-charged political points they can in a critical election year. IOW, they put the good of their party ahead of the good for the country and the people who need police reform the most. How much better would it be for all of us if Congress could pass a bipartisan police reform bill? Now, not next January.

This is the link to Senator Scott's speech on the Senate floor yesterday. I ain't going to say the GOP doesn't do the same thing sometimes. There are times when one party just cannot agree to what the other one wants to do, it's too antithetical to what they stand for. I get that, but this police reform bill is not that kind of thing, it could've and should've have been a bipartisan effort to do something good for the country for a change. Sad that it didn't happen.


The demrats HATE the fact the prime sponsor of the bill, Senator Scott is a black Republican. That is all there is too it.
 
Yesterday the GOP brought up a police reform bill in the US Senate for debate. That's it, nothing more than a vote to talk about the Republican effort to address police reform. The vote requires 60 votes to begin the debate on the bill, but the Democrats blocked it. They said the bill was so bad they couldn't even consider it, couldn't even consider making any changes to it.

NOTE: the bill also requires 60 votes to close debate and vote on passing the bill. If the Dems didn't like the results, they could've blocked it then. But no, they had to block it now. Why? Because then it looks like the GOP tried to do something about police reform. Cant have that if you're a Democrat, so they blocked the debate from even beginning.

Senator Schumer sent a letter to Leader McConnell saying the Dems wanted 5 things in the bill that had to be changed. So Senator Tim Scott, who wrote the bill, goes to McConnell and they agree to make the 5 Amendments. Scott goes back to the Dems who say there's not just 5, there's 20. So make 20 Amendments to the bill during the debate, that's how it's supposed to work. We want this, you want that, let's make a deal. Didn't happen, the Dems wouldn't even talk about it. Why?

Answer: because it was a Republican bill. "The actual problem is not what is being offered. It is who is offering it. Took me a long time to figure out the most obvious thing in the room. It's not they what," Scott said.

"What I missed in this issue is that the stereotyping of Republicans is just as toxic and poison to the outcomes of the most vulnerable communities in this nation. That's the issue. When Speaker Pelosi says one of the most heinous things I can imagine: that the Republicans are actually trying to cover up murder, the murder of George Floyd with our legislation, that's not politics. That's not a game to win. That's you lose."

Here's the thing: Scott understands that the real reason why Senate Democrats rejected debate on the bill is because they don’t want to give the Republicans and Trump any sort of legislative victory at a time when Democrats are trying to score all the racially-charged political points they can in a critical election year. IOW, they put the good of their party ahead of the good for the country and the people who need police reform the most. How much better would it be for all of us if Congress could pass a bipartisan police reform bill? Now, not next January.

This is the link to Senator Scott's speech on the Senate floor yesterday. I ain't going to say the GOP doesn't do the same thing sometimes. There are times when one party just cannot agree to what the other one wants to do, it's too antithetical to what they stand for. I get that, but this police reform bill is not that kind of thing, it could've and should've have been a bipartisan effort to do something good for the country for a change. Sad that it didn't happen.


Okay. But my understanding was that the House Democrats came up with a bill that went to the Senate, and apparently the Senate would not entertain it, had to come up with their own.

Is that also true?


No, the House bill hasn't even been voted on yet. My guess is, the House Dems will pass their bill along party lines today and send it to the Senate, where McConnell will require passage of the Senate version and then the 2 bills will go into some sort of conference where they'll work out the differences.


Added: Senator Scott also said this:

"Because they believe that the polls reflect a 15-point deficit on our side. Therefore they can get the vote they want in November. All they have to do is win the election. Then roll in January and they get the chance to write the police reform bill without our support at all. Well, this is what they did in the House, right? No amendments in the house from Republicans on their bill. We're saying amendments on our side. Democrats are saying no amendments in the House but you, here in the United States Senate because we are the world's greatest deliberative body, you can have amendments. Not in the House. Not under Speaker Pelosi. But under leader McConnell, you get at least 20 amendments. I’ll throw in the managers amendment, too. That was not good enough because the irony of the story is not the bill. The irony of the story is that today and through the rest of June and all of July, what we're going to have here is, instead of getting 70% of what you wanted or more, you're going to get zero."

What does that tell us about the Dems vs the Repubs? We get to make amendments but you don't.
 
Last edited:
This isn’t one sided, both parties are culpable for obstructionist tactics. There is no justification for not moving bills forward for an up or down vote.
 
Yesterday the GOP brought up a police reform bill in the US Senate for debate. That's it, nothing more than a vote to talk about the Republican effort to address police reform. The vote requires 60 votes to begin the debate on the bill, but the Democrats blocked it. They said the bill was so bad they couldn't even consider it, couldn't even consider making any changes to it.

NOTE: the bill also requires 60 votes to close debate and vote on passing the bill. If the Dems didn't like the results, they could've blocked it then. But no, they had to block it now. Why? Because then it looks like the GOP tried to do something about police reform. Cant have that if you're a Democrat, so they blocked the debate from even beginning.

Senator Schumer sent a letter to Leader McConnell saying the Dems wanted 5 things in the bill that had to be changed. So Senator Tim Scott, who wrote the bill, goes to McConnell and they agree to make the 5 Amendments. Scott goes back to the Dems who say there's not just 5, there's 20. So make 20 Amendments to the bill during the debate, that's how it's supposed to work. We want this, you want that, let's make a deal. Didn't happen, the Dems wouldn't even talk about it. Why?

Answer: because it was a Republican bill. "The actual problem is not what is being offered. It is who is offering it. Took me a long time to figure out the most obvious thing in the room. It's not they what," Scott said.

"What I missed in this issue is that the stereotyping of Republicans is just as toxic and poison to the outcomes of the most vulnerable communities in this nation. That's the issue. When Speaker Pelosi says one of the most heinous things I can imagine: that the Republicans are actually trying to cover up murder, the murder of George Floyd with our legislation, that's not politics. That's not a game to win. That's you lose."

Here's the thing: Scott understands that the real reason why Senate Democrats rejected debate on the bill is because they don’t want to give the Republicans and Trump any sort of legislative victory at a time when Democrats are trying to score all the racially-charged political points they can in a critical election year. IOW, they put the good of their party ahead of the good for the country and the people who need police reform the most. How much better would it be for all of us if Congress could pass a bipartisan police reform bill? Now, not next January.

This is the link to Senator Scott's speech on the Senate floor yesterday. I ain't going to say the GOP doesn't do the same thing sometimes. There are times when one party just cannot agree to what the other one wants to do, it's too antithetical to what they stand for. I get that, but this police reform bill is not that kind of thing, it could've and should've have been a bipartisan effort to do something good for the country for a change. Sad that it didn't happen.


The demrats HATE the fact the prime sponsor of the bill, Senator Scott is a black Republican. That is all there is too it.

So he wrote that piece of crap legislation?
 
This isn’t one sided, both parties are culpable for obstructionist tactics. There is no justification for not moving bills forward for an up or down vote.
I promise you, I'm not taking the Dems side here in the senate, but if they know as Task said that a Democratic sponsored bill is on its way, why start negotiating over a bill before they are both there to work with?

I hate the obstructionist politicking from both parties. However, at this particular moment in history, BOTH parties are going to want to take credit for a bill and they are currently positioning themselves for the negotiations.
 
Yesterday the GOP brought up a police reform bill in the US Senate for debate. That's it, nothing more than a vote to talk about the Republican effort to address police reform. The vote requires 60 votes to begin the debate on the bill, but the Democrats blocked it. They said the bill was so bad they couldn't even consider it, couldn't even consider making any changes to it.

NOTE: the bill also requires 60 votes to close debate and vote on passing the bill. If the Dems didn't like the results, they could've blocked it then. But no, they had to block it now. Why? Because then it looks like the GOP tried to do something about police reform. Cant have that if you're a Democrat, so they blocked the debate from even beginning.

Senator Schumer sent a letter to Leader McConnell saying the Dems wanted 5 things in the bill that had to be changed. So Senator Tim Scott, who wrote the bill, goes to McConnell and they agree to vote on the 5 Amendments. Scott goes back to the Dems who say there's not just 5, there's 20. So make 20 Amendments to the bill during the debate, that's how it's supposed to work. We want this, you want that, let's make a deal. Didn't happen, the Dems wouldn't even talk about it. Why?

Answer: because it was a Republican bill. "The actual problem is not what is being offered. It is who is offering it. Took me a long time to figure out the most obvious thing in the room. It's not they what," Scott said.

"What I missed in this issue is that the stereotyping of Republicans is just as toxic and poison to the outcomes of the most vulnerable communities in this nation. That's the issue. When Speaker Pelosi says one of the most heinous things I can imagine: that the Republicans are actually trying to cover up murder, the murder of George Floyd with our legislation, that's not politics. That's not a game to win. That's you lose."

Here's the thing: Scott understands that the real reason why Senate Democrats rejected debate on the bill is because they don’t want to give the Republicans and Trump any sort of legislative victory at a time when Democrats are trying to score all the racially-charged political points they can in a critical election year. IOW, they put the good of their party ahead of the good for the country and the people who need police reform the most. How much better would it be for all of us if Congress could pass a bipartisan police reform bill? Now, not next January.

This is the link to Senator Scott's speech on the Senate floor yesterday. I ain't going to say the GOP doesn't do the same thing sometimes. There are times when one party just cannot agree to what the other one wants to do, it's too antithetical to what they stand for. I get that, but this police reform bill is not that kind of thing, it could've and should've have been a bipartisan effort to do something good for the country for a change. Sad that it didn't happen.



You are showing that you are a partisan. There should have been a negotiation between Democrats and Republicans. Instead the Republicans said it was either my way or the highway. There was no attempt to forge a compromise. Scott knows nothing. He is a partisan hack who happens to be black. That is why he he was given carte blanche to do this.

You talk about bipartisanship but clearly there was none. The onus was on Republicans to do so. But they decided on a partisan route.
 
Yesterday the GOP brought up a police reform bill in the US Senate for debate. That's it, nothing more than a vote to talk about the Republican effort to address police reform. The vote requires 60 votes to begin the debate on the bill, but the Democrats blocked it. They said the bill was so bad they couldn't even consider it, couldn't even consider making any changes to it.

NOTE: the bill also requires 60 votes to close debate and vote on passing the bill. If the Dems didn't like the results, they could've blocked it then. But no, they had to block it now. Why? Because then it looks like the GOP tried to do something about police reform. Cant have that if you're a Democrat, so they blocked the debate from even beginning.

Senator Schumer sent a letter to Leader McConnell saying the Dems wanted 5 things in the bill that had to be changed. So Senator Tim Scott, who wrote the bill, goes to McConnell and they agree to make the 5 Amendments. Scott goes back to the Dems who say there's not just 5, there's 20. So make 20 Amendments to the bill during the debate, that's how it's supposed to work. We want this, you want that, let's make a deal. Didn't happen, the Dems wouldn't even talk about it. Why?

Answer: because it was a Republican bill. "The actual problem is not what is being offered. It is who is offering it. Took me a long time to figure out the most obvious thing in the room. It's not they what," Scott said.

"What I missed in this issue is that the stereotyping of Republicans is just as toxic and poison to the outcomes of the most vulnerable communities in this nation. That's the issue. When Speaker Pelosi says one of the most heinous things I can imagine: that the Republicans are actually trying to cover up murder, the murder of George Floyd with our legislation, that's not politics. That's not a game to win. That's you lose."

Here's the thing: Scott understands that the real reason why Senate Democrats rejected debate on the bill is because they don’t want to give the Republicans and Trump any sort of legislative victory at a time when Democrats are trying to score all the racially-charged political points they can in a critical election year. IOW, they put the good of their party ahead of the good for the country and the people who need police reform the most. How much better would it be for all of us if Congress could pass a bipartisan police reform bill? Now, not next January.

This is the link to Senator Scott's speech on the Senate floor yesterday. I ain't going to say the GOP doesn't do the same thing sometimes. There are times when one party just cannot agree to what the other one wants to do, it's too antithetical to what they stand for. I get that, but this police reform bill is not that kind of thing, it could've and should've have been a bipartisan effort to do something good for the country for a change. Sad that it didn't happen.


Okay. But my understanding was that the House Democrats came up with a bill that went to the Senate, and apparently the Senate would not entertain it, had to come up with their own.

Is that also true?


No, the House bill hasn't even been voted on yet. My guess is, the House Dems will pass their bill along party lines today and send it to the Senate, where McConnell will require passage of the Senate version and then the 2 bills will go into some sort of conference where they'll work out the differences.


Added: Senator Scott also said this:

"Because they believe that the polls reflect a 15-point deficit on our side. Therefore they can get the vote they want in November. All they have to do is win the election. Then roll in January and they get the chance to write the police reform bill without our support at all. Well, this is what they did in the House, right? No amendments in the house from Republicans on their bill. We're saying amendments on our side. Democrats are saying no amendments in the House but you, here in the United States Senate because we are the world's greatest deliberative body, you can have amendments. Not in the House. Not under Speaker Pelosi. But under leader McConnell, you get at least 20 amendments. I’ll throw in the managers amendment, too. That was not good enough because the irony of the story is not the bill. The irony of the story is that today and through the rest of June and all of July, what we're going to have here is, instead of getting 70% of what you wanted or more, you're going to get zero."

What does that tell us about the Dems vs the Repubs? We get to make amendments but you don't.


Amendments mean nothing. The Republicans would have voted them down anyway. The time to be bipartisan was when the bill was being written. Scott would have none of that.
 
This isn’t one sided, both parties are culpable for obstructionist tactics. There is no justification for not moving bills forward for an up or down vote.
I promise you, I'm not taking the Dems side here in the senate, but if they know as Task said that a Democratic sponsored bill is on its way, why start negotiating over a bill before they are both there to work with?

I hate the obstructionist politicking from both parties. However, at this particular moment in history, BOTH parties are going to want to take credit for a bill and they are currently positioning themselves for the negotiations.

"but if they know as Task said that a Democratic sponsored bill is on its way, why start negotiating over a bill before they are both there to work with?"

You understand that the Dems are not allowing the Senate GOP to even begin to pass their bill, right? There's no way that the House bill is going to get looked at in the Senate until the Senate Dems allow a Senate bill to be debated on and passed. That's how politics is supposed to work, the House offers it's bill and the Senate passes on the Senate bill and it goes into a conference to work out the difference. But when one side will not allow the other to build their bill then what you have is a political standoff, because then it looks like one side is doing nothing to deal with the issue at hand.

So why is a Senate bill necessary if you have a House version? Because it won't pass in the GOP-controlled Senate as it is, even if McConnell brought up for a vote. You just can't let the other side steam-roll you, like it's our bill or nothing. The GOP isn't going to let that happen. So, the Senate has to pass their bill or we got nothin'. And that is necessary, because once you have a House bill and a Senate bill they go into a conference to hash out a final compromise. Ain't going to be no compromise with only one bill. You have to have a senate bill to identify the differences and work on the differences. Cuz if you don't then the Senate won't pass the final bill. But let's be clear about one thing: the Dems don't get to control the Senate, much as they'd like to. Nor should they.

So why are the Dems doing this? Politics. They want the Senate to go to the Dems in November and Biden to win over Trump, and they don't want to give the Repubs and Trump ANYTHING that might help them win. Such as passing a police reform bill.

Now - as Jets said above in post #6, both sides play the obstructionist game when they are not in the majority. There are no angels in politics who always do what's best for us instead of themselves and their party. BUT - when the country has a problem and one side or the other won't help fix it for political reasons, then I got a problem with that. This time, it's the Democrats who are doing it.
 
Yesterday the GOP brought up a police reform bill in the US Senate for debate. That's it, nothing more than a vote to talk about the Republican effort to address police reform. The vote requires 60 votes to begin the debate on the bill, but the Democrats blocked it. They said the bill was so bad they couldn't even consider it, couldn't even consider making any changes to it.

NOTE: the bill also requires 60 votes to close debate and vote on passing the bill. If the Dems didn't like the results, they could've blocked it then. But no, they had to block it now. Why? Because then it looks like the GOP tried to do something about police reform. Cant have that if you're a Democrat, so they blocked the debate from even beginning.

Senator Schumer sent a letter to Leader McConnell saying the Dems wanted 5 things in the bill that had to be changed. So Senator Tim Scott, who wrote the bill, goes to McConnell and they agree to make the 5 Amendments. Scott goes back to the Dems who say there's not just 5, there's 20. So make 20 Amendments to the bill during the debate, that's how it's supposed to work. We want this, you want that, let's make a deal. Didn't happen, the Dems wouldn't even talk about it. Why?

Answer: because it was a Republican bill. "The actual problem is not what is being offered. It is who is offering it. Took me a long time to figure out the most obvious thing in the room. It's not they what," Scott said.

"What I missed in this issue is that the stereotyping of Republicans is just as toxic and poison to the outcomes of the most vulnerable communities in this nation. That's the issue. When Speaker Pelosi says one of the most heinous things I can imagine: that the Republicans are actually trying to cover up murder, the murder of George Floyd with our legislation, that's not politics. That's not a game to win. That's you lose."

Here's the thing: Scott understands that the real reason why Senate Democrats rejected debate on the bill is because they don’t want to give the Republicans and Trump any sort of legislative victory at a time when Democrats are trying to score all the racially-charged political points they can in a critical election year. IOW, they put the good of their party ahead of the good for the country and the people who need police reform the most. How much better would it be for all of us if Congress could pass a bipartisan police reform bill? Now, not next January.

This is the link to Senator Scott's speech on the Senate floor yesterday. I ain't going to say the GOP doesn't do the same thing sometimes. There are times when one party just cannot agree to what the other one wants to do, it's too antithetical to what they stand for. I get that, but this police reform bill is not that kind of thing, it could've and should've have been a bipartisan effort to do something good for the country for a change. Sad that it didn't happen.


Okay. But my understanding was that the House Democrats came up with a bill that went to the Senate, and apparently the Senate would not entertain it, had to come up with their own.

Is that also true?


No, the House bill hasn't even been voted on yet. My guess is, the House Dems will pass their bill along party lines today and send it to the Senate, where McConnell will require passage of the Senate version and then the 2 bills will go into some sort of conference where they'll work out the differences.


Added: Senator Scott also said this:

"Because they believe that the polls reflect a 15-point deficit on our side. Therefore they can get the vote they want in November. All they have to do is win the election. Then roll in January and they get the chance to write the police reform bill without our support at all. Well, this is what they did in the House, right? No amendments in the house from Republicans on their bill. We're saying amendments on our side. Democrats are saying no amendments in the House but you, here in the United States Senate because we are the world's greatest deliberative body, you can have amendments. Not in the House. Not under Speaker Pelosi. But under leader McConnell, you get at least 20 amendments. I’ll throw in the managers amendment, too. That was not good enough because the irony of the story is not the bill. The irony of the story is that today and through the rest of June and all of July, what we're going to have here is, instead of getting 70% of what you wanted or more, you're going to get zero."

What does that tell us about the Dems vs the Repubs? We get to make amendments but you don't.


Amendments mean nothing. The Republicans would have voted them down anyway. The time to be bipartisan was when the bill was being written. Scott would have none of that.


Then the Dems can vote against cloture and the bill goes nowhere. It's not supposed to be all or nothing, depending on what the Senate Dems want, the GOP would accept some amendments to get the bill passed because it's in their best interest and that of the country's to do so. But the Dems wouldn't even allow the talking and negotiating to commence. And that is political bullshit.

Do you have a link that says Scott and the GOP would not allow bipartisan cooperation on the bill? How do you know he would have none of that? I don't believe it, the Dems wouldn't co-sponsor it for the reasons I have already given.
 
Yesterday the GOP brought up a police reform bill in the US Senate for debate. That's it, nothing more than a vote to talk about the Republican effort to address police reform. The vote requires 60 votes to begin the debate on the bill, but the Democrats blocked it. They said the bill was so bad they couldn't even consider it, couldn't even consider making any changes to it.

NOTE: the bill also requires 60 votes to close debate and vote on passing the bill. If the Dems didn't like the results, they could've blocked it then. But no, they had to block it now. Why? Because then it looks like the GOP tried to do something about police reform. Cant have that if you're a Democrat, so they blocked the debate from even beginning.

Senator Schumer sent a letter to Leader McConnell saying the Dems wanted 5 things in the bill that had to be changed. So Senator Tim Scott, who wrote the bill, goes to McConnell and they agree to vote on the 5 Amendments. Scott goes back to the Dems who say there's not just 5, there's 20. So make 20 Amendments to the bill during the debate, that's how it's supposed to work. We want this, you want that, let's make a deal. Didn't happen, the Dems wouldn't even talk about it. Why?

Answer: because it was a Republican bill. "The actual problem is not what is being offered. It is who is offering it. Took me a long time to figure out the most obvious thing in the room. It's not they what," Scott said.

"What I missed in this issue is that the stereotyping of Republicans is just as toxic and poison to the outcomes of the most vulnerable communities in this nation. That's the issue. When Speaker Pelosi says one of the most heinous things I can imagine: that the Republicans are actually trying to cover up murder, the murder of George Floyd with our legislation, that's not politics. That's not a game to win. That's you lose."

Here's the thing: Scott understands that the real reason why Senate Democrats rejected debate on the bill is because they don’t want to give the Republicans and Trump any sort of legislative victory at a time when Democrats are trying to score all the racially-charged political points they can in a critical election year. IOW, they put the good of their party ahead of the good for the country and the people who need police reform the most. How much better would it be for all of us if Congress could pass a bipartisan police reform bill? Now, not next January.

This is the link to Senator Scott's speech on the Senate floor yesterday. I ain't going to say the GOP doesn't do the same thing sometimes. There are times when one party just cannot agree to what the other one wants to do, it's too antithetical to what they stand for. I get that, but this police reform bill is not that kind of thing, it could've and should've have been a bipartisan effort to do something good for the country for a change. Sad that it didn't happen.



You are showing that you are a partisan. There should have been a negotiation between Democrats and Republicans. Instead the Republicans said it was either my way or the highway. There was no attempt to forge a compromise. Scott knows nothing. He is a partisan hack who happens to be black. That is why he he was given carte blanche to do this.

You talk about bipartisanship but clearly there was none. The onus was on Republicans to do so. But they decided on a partisan route.


BULLSHIT. It was totally the Democrats who decided on going the partisan route. Here's what I know FOR A FACT:

The House Dems would not even allow the Repubs to offer an Amendment to their police reform bill. But in the Senate Scott and the Repubs offered to allow the Senate Dems to make 20 Amendments to be voted on. Don't tell me the GOP went the partisan route, that is a flat out lie. The Democrats did that, and have been doing it ever since Pelosi became the Speaker.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top