Green New Deal fails Senate test vote as dozens of Democrats vote 'present'
The Green New Deal, a radical Democratic proposal for dealing with climate change, fell at the first hurdle Tuesday as the Senate failed to reach the 60 votes necessary to begin debate on the non-binding resolution, with 42 Democrats voting "present."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/green-n...-democrats
These losers can't even vote on their own bill. Do these people stand for anything? Good Lordy.
LOL. The socialist darling of the democrat party called this a 'political stunt' and 'wasting votes'. They voted to not even begin debate on the fairy tale dream of the socialist movement. As expected, the democrat runners for the next presidential election voted "present" to protect themselves. It's a wise move by them to distance themselves from the fringe left that is taking over the democrat party.
(03-26-2019, 06:36 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]LOL. The socialist darling of the democrat party called this a 'political stunt' and 'wasting votes'. They voted to not even begin debate on the fairy tale dream of the socialist movement. As expected, the democrat runners for the next presidential election voted "present" to protect themselves. It's a wise move by them to distance themselves from the fringe left that is taking over the democrat party.
Anything that drives both parties back towards the middle is ok by me.
(03-26-2019, 08:32 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2019, 06:36 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]LOL. The socialist darling of the democrat party called this a 'political stunt' and 'wasting votes'. They voted to not even begin debate on the fairy tale dream of the socialist movement. As expected, the democrat runners for the next presidential election voted "present" to protect themselves. It's a wise move by them to distance themselves from the fringe left that is taking over the democrat party.
Anything that drives both parties back towards the middle is ok by me.
Yes, yes yes.
From my perspective, I don't mind McConnell putting the thing up for a vote. It exposed the whole proposal as a big political stunt and total bull [BLEEP].
But, from the Republican party's political perspective it might have been smarter not to put it up for a vote. He could have just left it out there like a stinking turd.
(03-27-2019, 07:09 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2019, 08:32 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]Anything that drives both parties back towards the middle is ok by me.
Yes, yes yes.
From my perspective, I don't mind McConnell putting the thing up for a vote. It exposed the whole proposal as a big political stunt and total bull [BLEEP].
But, from the Republican party's political perspective it might have been smarter not to put it up for a vote. He could have just left it out there like a stinking turd.
Nah. Republicans fear AOC. I still don't understand why. She's a one-termer who's going to be kicked to the curb in 2020 for having views that are too damn radical for mainstream Americans to stomach, but anything that helps get her out of the way of sanity and centrist reemergence is something I can get behind. Exposing her Green New Deal as something that even the "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party won't vote for is definitely a black eye.
(03-27-2019, 09:33 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2019, 07:09 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, yes yes.
From my perspective, I don't mind McConnell putting the thing up for a vote. It exposed the whole proposal as a big political stunt and total bull [BLEEP].
But, from the Republican party's political perspective it might have been smarter not to put it up for a vote. He could have just left it out there like a stinking turd.
Nah. Republicans fear AOC. I still don't understand why. She's a one-termer who's going to be kicked to the curb in 2020 for having views that are too damn radical for mainstream Americans to stomach, but anything that helps get her out of the way of sanity and centrist reemergence is something I can get behind. Exposing her Green New Deal as something that even the "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party won't vote for is definitely a black eye.
They don't fear AOC as much as they fear the stoking of ideas that are being brought to the table and supported by other clueless "progressives". That is where it gets dangerous. Unfortunately, there is a large, young, impressionable audience that can vote with zero ability of foresight and logical deduction. I applaud the vote because it squashes the dreamy yet dangerous unknowns and forces people to support it or hang it up as illogical. There can be environmental concerns and legislation without going extreme and gutting our economy. Oddly enough, this was just one of a long line of out there ideas like increasing Supreme Court size, eliminating Electoral College, reparations, ending filibuster, ending private health care, and wage for all. If you can't beat em, change the rules and buy the vote! Like you though, I hope it pushes the parties back to center. Hopefully, a more level headed candidate or candidates will emerge ahead of those that support these dangerous ideas. Surprised the Dem leadership is letting this all go down without a fight. Making the party look pretty inept and dysfunctional.
(03-27-2019, 09:33 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2019, 07:09 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, yes yes.
From my perspective, I don't mind McConnell putting the thing up for a vote. It exposed the whole proposal as a big political stunt and total bull [BLEEP].
But, from the Republican party's political perspective it might have been smarter not to put it up for a vote. He could have just left it out there like a stinking turd.
Nah. Republicans fear AOC. I still don't understand why. She's a one-termer who's going to be kicked to the curb in 2020 for having views that are too damn radical for mainstream Americans to stomach, but anything that helps get her out of the way of sanity and centrist reemergence is something I can get behind. Exposing her Green New Deal as something that even the "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party won't vote for is definitely a black eye.
Her ideas would be eaten up by 16 year olds who have never earned a paycheck. The same 16 year olds they want to be able to vote.
There is plenty to fear. You just don't know it yet.
Tucker interviewed the 1 republican who voted to allow 16 year olds to vote last night and his main selling point was that they don't automatically have to be democrats. Republicans need to do their jobs to recruit them. That is simply impossible at that age, unless they were raised by good parents.
I don't think changing the voting age is a big deal either way.
You can argue that they are not legally adults and can't serve in the military or police until 18, but, we only do elections every two years, so if you let 16 year olds vote, they will become legal adults before the people they are voting for leave office. It's fair in that sense, but it's not like it's unfair now.
That said, only about 2% of the population is 16 or 17 years old. The impact on elections would be miniscule, especially considering most of them won't bother to vote.
(03-27-2019, 11:24 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think changing the voting age is a big deal either way.
You can argue that they are not legally adults and can't serve in the military or police until 18, but, we only do elections every two years, so if you let 16 year olds vote, they will become legal adults by the time the people they are voting for leave office. It's fair in that sense, but it's not like it was unfair before.
That said, only about 2% of the population is 16 or 17 years old. The impact on elections would be miniscule, especially considering most of them won't bother to vote.
If they want to include all other privileges that come with being an adult like you mentioned, in addition to being tried as an adult for crimes and owning firearms, then they can have a fair discussion.
The taxation without representation argument from the left makes me chuckle. I worked from 15-18 and never complained about not voting. In fact, looking at the line items of a paycheck mold you to form your own political opinions which you can exercise in a couple short years.
(03-27-2019, 09:54 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2019, 09:33 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]Nah. Republicans fear AOC. I still don't understand why. She's a one-termer who's going to be kicked to the curb in 2020 for having views that are too damn radical for mainstream Americans to stomach, but anything that helps get her out of the way of sanity and centrist reemergence is something I can get behind. Exposing her Green New Deal as something that even the "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party won't vote for is definitely a black eye.
They don't fear AOC as much as they fear the stoking of ideas that are being brought to the table and supported by other clueless "progressives". That is where it gets dangerous. Unfortunately, there is a large, young, impressionable audience that can vote with zero ability of foresight and logical deduction. I applaud the vote because it squashes the dreamy yet dangerous unknowns and forces people to support it or hang it up as illogical. There can be environmental concerns and legislation without going extreme and gutting our economy. Oddly enough, this was just one of a long line of out there ideas like increasing Supreme Court size, eliminating Electoral College, reparations, ending filibuster, ending private health care, and wage for all. If you can't beat em, change the rules and buy the vote! Like you though, I hope it pushes the parties back to center. Hopefully, a more level headed candidate or candidates will emerge ahead of those that support these dangerous ideas. Surprised the Dem leadership is letting this all go down without a fight. Making the party look pretty inept and dysfunctional.
I think it depends on the Republican Party's motivation. If they want to elect more Republicans, and win back the House and Senate, not to mention the Presidency, they should keep the GND alive as a political punching bag and use it to scare the hell out of the voters. On the other hand, if they actually care about issues, and the future of the country, and not so much about elections, then they are happy to see the GND go down in flames.
I don't think either party, if they are thinking rationally, and have some confidence in their ability to sell their ideas to the voters, should fear the other party moving away from the center. Republicans should want AOC and the extremist left wingers to gain control of the democratic party. It just means they (the Republicans) will win more elections. I myself am a microcosm of a swing voter, and as I have said many times already, I will not vote for socialism.
(03-27-2019, 01:24 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]And this happened. Awesome!
I like Mike Lee. He's cut from the same centrist cloth as Rand Paul. And I like him more now that Tauntauns, giant seahorses, sharknadoes and interviews with cows are being used to debunk the Green New Deal.
And for the record, 16-year-olds should not be allowed to vote. 16-year-olds are stupid. Source: I was one.
(03-27-2019, 02:00 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2019, 01:24 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]And this happened. Awesome!
I like Mike Lee. He's cut from the same centrist cloth as Rand Paul. And I like him more now that Tauntauns, giant seahorses, sharknadoes and interviews with cows are being used to debunk the Green New Deal.
And for the record, 16-year-olds should not be allowed to vote. 16-year-olds are stupid. Source: I was one.
Agreed. When I was 16, I was an idiot who only wanted immediate satisfaction. I never thought about the future. I was impulsive and never paid much attention to anything. I definitely shouldn't have been allowed to vote. 16 year olds aren't mature enough. At least most of them.
(03-27-2019, 02:00 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2019, 01:24 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]And this happened. Awesome!
I like Mike Lee. He's cut from the same centrist cloth as Rand Paul. And I like him more now that Tauntauns, giant seahorses, sharknadoes and interviews with cows are being used to debunk the Green New Deal.
And for the record, 16-year-olds should not be allowed to vote. 16-year-olds are stupid. Source: I was one.
So you're 17 now?
(03-27-2019, 02:05 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2019, 02:00 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]I like Mike Lee. He's cut from the same centrist cloth as Rand Paul. And I like him more now that Tauntauns, giant seahorses, sharknadoes and interviews with cows are being used to debunk the Green New Deal.
And for the record, 16-year-olds should not be allowed to vote. 16-year-olds are stupid. Source: I was one.
“...When I was 16, I was an idiot who only wanted immediate satisfaction. I never thought about the future. I was impulsive and never paid much attention to anything. I definitely shouldn't have been allowed to vote. 16 year olds aren't mature enough…”
Which is
exactly why democrats want to give them the vote.
The "12 more years to live" clock resets every morning.
(03-27-2019, 02:05 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2019, 02:00 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]I like Mike Lee. He's cut from the same centrist cloth as Rand Paul. And I like him more now that Tauntauns, giant seahorses, sharknadoes and interviews with cows are being used to debunk the Green New Deal.
And for the record, 16-year-olds should not be allowed to vote. 16-year-olds are stupid. Source: I was one.
So you're 17 now?
No, but thanks for making me calculate how long it's been since I was 17. I feel old. I'm going to go get fitted for dentures and check out local nursing homes now.
So many cogs in the fossil fuel wheel up in this forum. Do u wipe ur faces off everyday after u take one from the man or do u look in the mirror and actually aspire to be better and make the US a better place?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro