'Pubs Hate Veterans

[Rotadom]

Reason #278 why they are called deplorable.

 

[QueequegsHead]

Hmmm...

Yeah, that's really noble of them.

Comshaw

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3967/amendments

So, we're in agreement. The OP was wrong, it had nothing, not a single thing to do with Republicans hating veterans. Thank you for your confirmation of what I said, even though you had to find the most garrulous way to do it...

 

[Comshaw]

So, we're in agreement. The OP was wrong, it had nothing, not a single thing to do with Republicans hating veterans. Thank you for your confirmation of what I said, even though you had to find the most garrulous way to do it...

You are welcome. But, dear sir, that was not the statement you made I was addressing. It was this:

"...that the Democrats tried to shove down everyone's throats."

Misdirection, attempting to highlight a side effect of my post while ignoring the main thrust, will not absolve you of being, nor hide the fact that you were wrong.

Comshaw

 

[HisArpy]

From your post you are telling me the majority of Republican constituencies are willing and agreeable to refusing care to veterans for no other reason than as a childish payback? Really? And you consider this an appropriate use of the power our congressional representatives wield? You think that one side should vote down something that most of them see as appropriate, something they agreed with when it was introduced, voted for the first time because they knew it was the right thing to do?

And what of the veterans? I'm sure there are as many Republican veterans as Democrats. What of them? Do you believe they agree with this? Should they suffer for no other reason them a power game? Which by the way will mean nothing in the long run, do nothing other than salve the egos of those who are blocking this bill.

Is that what you are saying? You would encourage politicians to be that petty? This is't a "screw the Dem's" thing. This is an ill conceived plan to do that, but in reality the veterans are the ones being screwed. Apparently that matters not at all to you.

Comshaw

I'm not "encouraging" anyone to do or be anything. What you seem to fail at understanding is that this is POLITICS and politics is nothing more than revenge porn for the similarly inclined.

They didn't vote "against vets." They voted against the PORK. But to you, the PORK doesn't matter as long as it gets you a talking point you can use to bash the R's via that political revenge porn thing I just mentioned.

Good luck with getting that egg off your face. You and the OP both.

 

[ll74]

They didn't vote against this bill...they protest voted against the Manchin bill and screwed veterans in the process.

 

[Comshaw]

I'm not "encouraging" anyone to do or be anything. What you seem to fail at understanding is that this is POLITICS and politics is nothing more than revenge porn for the similarly inclined.

They didn't vote "against vets." They voted against the PORK. But to you, the PORK doesn't matter as long as it gets you a talking point you can use to bash the R's via that political revenge porn thing I just mentioned.

Good luck with getting that egg off your face. You and the OP both.

Yes, I agree that the ones who voted against it both times might have done it because of the cost of the bill. In fact I think one or two said so. And that, my dear sir, is appropriate. I do not agree with their assessment, but they voted against it for a legitimate reason.

That said, please read my previous posts and try to comprehend that the Republicans who voted for it the first time and against it the second time didn't do it because of "pork". There was NO "pork" added to the bill the second time, only minor procedural changes were done. So how could they be voting against what was not added? They did it for no other reason than, as you noted, revenge and a bruised ego. Additionally, NONE of those Republicans who reversed their vote HAVE EVER claimed it was because of the cost. If it had been you would think they would make that apparent, yeah?


Comshaw

 

[icanhelp1]

Yes, I agree that the ones who voted against it both times might have done it because of the cost of the bill. In fact I think one or two said so. And that, my dear sir, is appropriate. I do not agree with their assessment, but they voted against it for a legitimate reason.

That said, please read my previous posts and try to comprehend that the Republicans who voted for it the first time and against it the second time didn't do it because of "pork". There was NO "pork" added to the bill the second time, only minor procedural changes were done. So how could they be voting against what was not added? They did it for no other reason than, as you noted, revenge and a bruised ego. Additionally, NONE of those who Republicans who reversed their vote HAVE EVER claimed it was because of the cost. If it had been you would think they would make that apparent, yeah?


Comshaw

Easy fix for democrats. Make the bill a stand alone bill with all funding going to veterans health initiatives, position the bill as an appropriation process which is a counter measure to stymie spending on projects outside the original intent of the bill itself. I don't understand why dems have heartburn with that, well, I know why.

 

[ll74]

Easy fix for democrats. Make the bill a stand alone bill with all funding going to veterans health initiatives, position the bill as an appropriation process which is a counter measure to stymie spending on projects outside the original intent of the bill itself. I don't understand why dems have heartburn with that, well, I know why.

Because they want veterans that need additional care (i.e. fire pits) to have their needs covered as well.

 

[icanhelp1]

Because they want veterans that need additional care (i.e. fire pits) to have their needs covered as well.

Then vote on that and appropriate what they need. Mandatory leaves too many options to wander off the reservation and peel off funding for other projects.

 

[icanhelp1]

To accuse republicans of not caring for veterans is a stupid, more divisive tactics used by dems.

 

[ll74]

Then vote on that and appropriate what they need. Mandatory leaves too many options to wander off the reservation and peel off funding for other projects.

That was the vote.

 

[ll74]

As usual, John Stewart sees through the bullshit
"They're comin for your pronouns!"

 

[butters]

Facing overwhelming backlash after tanking a previously-approved veterans health benefits bill (known as the PACT Act) out of spite over Democrats’ climate and tax legislation, the Senate’s Republican leadership now seems to have realized that the tantrum isn’t worth it.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), one of the 25 Republicans who had abruptly switched their initial “yes” vote to a “no,” signaled on Monday that the bill, which provides aid for veterans suffering from toxic exposures, will overcome the blockade when Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) puts it up for a vote again.

“It will pass this week,” McConnell said.

A similarly squirmy Senate Republican Conference chair John Barrasso (R-WY), the third-ranking GOP senator and another Republican who had changed his vote, told Politico that he would “expect it to pass.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...sedgntp&cvid=d0c9a19421614d0fc1471bc9f65ee058

 

[jaF0]

With egg on their faces ....

​

U.S. News // 3 hours ago
Bipartisan Senate vote sends burn pit benefits bill to Biden's desk
The U.S. Senate gave strong bipartisan support in its second vote on legislation granting healthcare coverage to veterans who have been exposed to toxic burn pits during service.​

 

[ll74]

With egg on their faces ....

​

U.S. News // 3 hours ago

Bipartisan Senate vote sends burn pit benefits bill to Biden's desk

The U.S. Senate gave strong bipartisan support in its second vote on legislation granting healthcare coverage to veterans who have been exposed to toxic burn pits during service.​

The vote was the same as it was before

 

[butters]

The vote was the same as it was before

almost the bill gained 2 extra votes and dropped 3 'noes', lol

The chamber voted 86-11 in favor of the Honoring our PACT Act. The House passed it in June, which means the legislation now goes to President Joe Biden's desk for a signature.

it was 84-14 back in June

 

[Philthy_Phil]

The bill is eventually going to pass, just not in the form that the Democrats tried to shove down everyone's throats.

And it will be with overwhelming Republican support.

You heard it here, BUTTERS!

MOOooo...

I always took you as an oinker not a mooer. Either works I suppose.

 

[butters]

With egg on their faces ....

​

U.S. News // 3 hours ago

Bipartisan Senate vote sends burn pit benefits bill to Biden's desk

The U.S. Senate gave strong bipartisan support in its second vote on legislation granting healthcare coverage to veterans who have been exposed to toxic burn pits during service.​

and didn't even change a thing in the bill. the only changes before were purely procedural ones, not the content of the bill itself.

Another win for Americans.

 

[jaF0]

So Tombey got thumped?

 

[Philthy_Phil]

As usual, John Stewart sees through the bullshit
"They're comin for your pronouns!"

But rapey and AJ said they tried to pork it up!

Thise worthless parasites will ignore the truth just to keep lockstep with the other trumptards. Republicans like them lemmings.