Congress passed $1.5 trillion budget bill with strong bipartisan support thanks in part to inclusion of earmarks

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36038

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36038 Posts

WASHINGTON — Congress cleared the first major federal spending legislation of President Biden’s administration on Thursday, approving a $1.5 trillion measure with substantial increases for domestic and national security programs, along with $13.6 billion in emergency aid for Ukraine as it battles Russia’s invasion.

The Senate approved the more than 2,700-page measure by a vote of 68 to 31 less than two days after it was finalized and pushed through the House, a rapid timetable that reflected strong bipartisan support for assisting Ukraine and a sense of urgency to avert a government shutdown within days. The bill, which funds the government through September, includes generous spending on domestic programs long prioritized by Democrats and military investments championed by Republicans.

Mr. Biden was expected to quickly sign the measure, which marked the first time since he took office and Democrats won unified control of Congress that they have been able to enact a spending bill that reflects their priorities, including investing in climate resilience, public assistance programs and unlocking aid for projects contained in the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure law.

In remarks on the Senate floor, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, called it “the strongest, boldest and most significant government funding package we’ve seen in a very long time.”

But to clear the way for passage, Democrats had to drop some priorities, most notably a White House request for more pandemic aid. Republicans objected to spending any new federal money on the coronavirus response, prompting Democrats first to whittle down the size of that package, and then to claw back funding from existing aid programs, including money for state governments, to pay for it.

But that strategy infuriated rank-and-file Democrats and governors in both parties, who balked at yanking promised state assistance, and leaders were forced to strip the aid from the package. They vowed to try again to pass it in the coming days, but Republican support was unclear, leaving in doubt the fate of the administration’s new pandemic plan.

“The bipartisan funding bill proves once more that members of both parties can come together to deliver results for the American people,” Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said in a statement. But, she added, “we continue to call on Congress to provide the funds urgently needed to prevent severe disruptions to our Covid response.”

Republicans claimed credit for prodding Democrats to accept a $42 billion increase in military spending, bringing the total this year to $782 billion.

The negotiations, said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, “put us Republicans in the surreal position of having to push a commander in chief’s party into giving his own commanders the funding they need.”

“But over many Democrats’ objections, Republicans made sure this deal gets the job done for our armed forces,” he said.

Democrats hailed the $46 billion increase they secured for domestic programs, calling the $730 billion total the largest investment in four years.

“This bill invests in future prosperity, in our health, and reduces everyday costs for millions of Americans, such as child care, a college education, and heating and cooling costs,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who leads the Appropriations Committee.

The last-minute scuffles reflected the arduous negotiations over the package, which dragged out more than five months past the Oct. 1 start of the fiscal year that it is supposed to fund. To secure Republican support, Democrats agreed to go above the administration’s request for Pentagon spending and maintain a series of longstanding restrictions on federal money that they had hoped to remove, including the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for most abortions.

The package provides $145 billion to invest in new aircraft, ships and other vehicles, including 13 new Navy vessels, a dozen F/A-18 Super Hornets and 85 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. It also provides a 2.7 percent pay raise for all 2.1 million uniformed service members as well as the approximately 750,000 civilian employees in the Defense Department.

Even without the emergency aid package, Democrats secured additional funds for pandemic preparedness. That includes $745 million, an increase of $148 million, for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and $845 million, an increase of $140 million, for the Strategic National Stockpile, an emergency medical reserve intended to guard against infectious disease and bioterrorism threats.

Democrats also won increases for maternal and child health programs, tribal programs, public education and programs addressing mental health crises.

And Congress agreed to direct millions of dollars toward its own employees and support of the Capitol complex. The U.S. Capitol Police will receive $602.5 million, an increase of $87 million, to help expand its ranks after the Jan. 6 riot, while House congressional offices will see their budgets expand 21 percent, the largest increase since 1996, to try to stem the drain of institutional knowledge and prevent staff from seeking better pay off Capitol Hill.

Because the package is one of the few must-pass bills remaining in the legislative session, lawmakers seized on the opportunity to attach an array of additional priorities. Most notably, the bill includes a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, a law aimed at preventing domestic violence, stalking and sexual assault that lapsed in 2019. Mr. Biden helped create the law as a senator in 1994, and a bipartisan group of senators had recently unveiled a deal on an expanded version.

The legislation also includes $1 billion in funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, which had been held up in the Senate because of objections from Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky. And it would close a loophole to ensure that makers of flavored e-cigarettes can no longer sidestep the Food and Drug Administration’s ability to regulate products derived from tobacco.

To push the package through the Senate, lawmakers had to navigate a series of objections from conservative Republicans, who complained that they had little time to examine the legislation and pushed to prioritize the emergency aid to Ukraine.

“It’s hard to express my anger and frustration,” said Senator Rick Scott, Republican of Florida, as Democrats blocked his effort to pass the emergency aid for Ukraine without the $1.5 trillion to fund the government. “What in the hell are we doing here?”

Like other budget hawks, Mr. Scott also derided the return of earmarks, which allow lawmakers in both parties to direct money toward projects in their states or districts. But lawmakers rejected an amendment, offered by Senator Mike Braun, Republican of Indiana, that would have stripped those projects, now rebranded with stricter guardrails, from the package.

“That’s what this is about — politics,” said Senator Jon Tester, Democrat of Montana, defending the package. He warned that Mr. Scott was risking a shutdown by seeking to change the spending measure.

“You can be unhappy with the legislation,” he added, “but the fact of the matter is, it has been negotiated over the last year by Democrats and Republicans.”

Before passing the sprawling measure, lawmakers also voted down additional Republican amendments, including a measure to prevent funding from going toward coronavirus vaccine mandates and an amendment providing disaster relief for Louisiana for recovery for hurricane damage.

Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, instead called for a separate disaster aid bill to be passed in the future. Any changes to the spending package would have forced another House vote and risked a government shutdown.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/us/politics/senate-spending-bill-approved.html

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/11/1086162338/once-derided-as-graft-earmarks-just-helped-congress-pass-a-bipartisan-budget-dea

Did anyone here even hear about this? I feel like this is the first time in a long time where I haven't heard about a big political fight over the budget and whether or not to keep the government open. This means politicians are actually working together (seriously 68 to 31 in the Senate) in a way that hasn't been seen since before the Obama administration. Granted, republicans fought against, and won, the inclusion of more pandemic aid, which would have really helped the general population. That said, here we are, a bill that passed in large part because of the use of earmarks which helped grease the wheels of this bill and allowed it to move through congress rather quickly and quietly.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

It's amazing we didn't have to see a debt battle. Spending should be a non-starter when it comes to funding the government and our obligations. Sad to see the majority of GOP Senators sit this one out though.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178808

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178808 Posts

@HoolaHoopMan said:

It's amazing we didn't have to see a debt battle. Spending should be a non-starter when it comes to funding the government and our obligations. Sad to see the majority of GOP Senators sit this one out though.

Expected. They don't work for the country. Just themselves and their party. At this point we need to take Jefferson's advice because this isn't working anymore. We need to overhaul the government.

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

7976

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#4 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 7976 Posts

My god the amount of spending over the last few years is insane.

And people question why inflation is at record highs. We are getting money printed into a recession. Our dollar isn't going to be worth shit.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
vl4d_l3nin

3700

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#5 vl4d_l3nin
Member since 2013 • 3700 Posts

Classic "bipartisanship". Increased spending on domestic programs for Dems, increased spending on military for Republicans.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
Stevo_the_gamer

49565

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 0

#6 Stevo_the_gamer  Moderator
Member since 2004 • 49565 Posts

Well, at least we're avoiding a shutdown... Until just in time for the midterm elections. I'm sure that'll go well.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36038

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36038 Posts
@Stevo_the_gamer said:

Well, at least we're avoiding a shutdown... Until just in time for the midterm elections. I'm sure that'll go well.

Yeah, my praise isn't super high as keeping the lights on is legit the bare minimum. It's just that doing the bare minimum hasn't been the easiest thing for congress for more than a decade now.

Avatar image for X360PS3AMD05
X360PS3AMD05

36320

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 X360PS3AMD05
Member since 2005 • 36320 Posts

This ship is just going to sink with all that defense spending ain't it? Those in power today will be long dead.

Avatar image for tjandmia
tjandmia

3723

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#9 tjandmia
Member since 2017 • 3723 Posts

@sargentd said:

My god the amount of spending over the last few years is insane.

And people question why inflation is at record highs. We are getting money printed into a recession. Our dollar isn't going to be worth shit.

The last administration say $8 trillion in spending over 4 years. Amazing. The 2020 recession hit spending very hard.

Avatar image for judaspete
judaspete

7203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#10 judaspete  Online
Member since 2005 • 7203 Posts

@X360PS3AMD05: Pay attention dude. Money doesn't count when you spend it on bombs. This is Neocon economics 101.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

8671

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#11 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 8671 Posts

@Serraph105 said:

WASHINGTON — Congress cleared the first major federal spending legislation of President Biden’s administration on Thursday, approving a $1.5 trillion measure with substantial increases for domestic and national security programs, along with $13.6 billion in emergency aid for Ukraine as it battles Russia’s invasion.

The Senate approved the more than 2,700-page measure by a vote of 68 to 31 less than two days after it was finalized and pushed through the House, a rapid timetable that reflected strong bipartisan support for assisting Ukraine and a sense of urgency to avert a government shutdown within days. The bill, which funds the government through September, includes generous spending on domestic programs long prioritized by Democrats and military investments championed by Republicans.

Mr. Biden was expected to quickly sign the measure, which marked the first time since he took office and Democrats won unified control of Congress that they have been able to enact a spending bill that reflects their priorities, including investing in climate resilience, public assistance programs and unlocking aid for projects contained in the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure law.

In remarks on the Senate floor, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, called it “the strongest, boldest and most significant government funding package we’ve seen in a very long time.”

But to clear the way for passage, Democrats had to drop some priorities, most notably a White House request for more pandemic aid. Republicans objected to spending any new federal money on the coronavirus response, prompting Democrats first to whittle down the size of that package, and then to claw back funding from existing aid programs, including money for state governments, to pay for it.

But that strategy infuriated rank-and-file Democrats and governors in both parties, who balked at yanking promised state assistance, and leaders were forced to strip the aid from the package. They vowed to try again to pass it in the coming days, but Republican support was unclear, leaving in doubt the fate of the administration’s new pandemic plan.

“The bipartisan funding bill proves once more that members of both parties can come together to deliver results for the American people,” Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said in a statement. But, she added, “we continue to call on Congress to provide the funds urgently needed to prevent severe disruptions to our Covid response.”

Republicans claimed credit for prodding Democrats to accept a $42 billion increase in military spending, bringing the total this year to $782 billion.

The negotiations, said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, “put us Republicans in the surreal position of having to push a commander in chief’s party into giving his own commanders the funding they need.”

“But over many Democrats’ objections, Republicans made sure this deal gets the job done for our armed forces,” he said.

Democrats hailed the $46 billion increase they secured for domestic programs, calling the $730 billion total the largest investment in four years.

“This bill invests in future prosperity, in our health, and reduces everyday costs for millions of Americans, such as child care, a college education, and heating and cooling costs,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who leads the Appropriations Committee.

The last-minute scuffles reflected the arduous negotiations over the package, which dragged out more than five months past the Oct. 1 start of the fiscal year that it is supposed to fund. To secure Republican support, Democrats agreed to go above the administration’s request for Pentagon spending and maintain a series of longstanding restrictions on federal money that they had hoped to remove, including the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for most abortions.

The package provides $145 billion to invest in new aircraft, ships and other vehicles, including 13 new Navy vessels, a dozen F/A-18 Super Hornets and 85 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. It also provides a 2.7 percent pay raise for all 2.1 million uniformed service members as well as the approximately 750,000 civilian employees in the Defense Department.

Even without the emergency aid package, Democrats secured additional funds for pandemic preparedness. That includes $745 million, an increase of $148 million, for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and $845 million, an increase of $140 million, for the Strategic National Stockpile, an emergency medical reserve intended to guard against infectious disease and bioterrorism threats.

Democrats also won increases for maternal and child health programs, tribal programs, public education and programs addressing mental health crises.

And Congress agreed to direct millions of dollars toward its own employees and support of the Capitol complex. The U.S. Capitol Police will receive $602.5 million, an increase of $87 million, to help expand its ranks after the Jan. 6 riot, while House congressional offices will see their budgets expand 21 percent, the largest increase since 1996, to try to stem the drain of institutional knowledge and prevent staff from seeking better pay off Capitol Hill.

Because the package is one of the few must-pass bills remaining in the legislative session, lawmakers seized on the opportunity to attach an array of additional priorities. Most notably, the bill includes a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, a law aimed at preventing domestic violence, stalking and sexual assault that lapsed in 2019. Mr. Biden helped create the law as a senator in 1994, and a bipartisan group of senators had recently unveiled a deal on an expanded version.

The legislation also includes $1 billion in funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, which had been held up in the Senate because of objections from Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky. And it would close a loophole to ensure that makers of flavored e-cigarettes can no longer sidestep the Food and Drug Administration’s ability to regulate products derived from tobacco.

To push the package through the Senate, lawmakers had to navigate a series of objections from conservative Republicans, who complained that they had little time to examine the legislation and pushed to prioritize the emergency aid to Ukraine.

“It’s hard to express my anger and frustration,” said Senator Rick Scott, Republican of Florida, as Democrats blocked his effort to pass the emergency aid for Ukraine without the $1.5 trillion to fund the government. “What in the hell are we doing here?”

Like other budget hawks, Mr. Scott also derided the return of earmarks, which allow lawmakers in both parties to direct money toward projects in their states or districts. But lawmakers rejected an amendment, offered by Senator Mike Braun, Republican of Indiana, that would have stripped those projects, now rebranded with stricter guardrails, from the package.

“That’s what this is about — politics,” said Senator Jon Tester, Democrat of Montana, defending the package. He warned that Mr. Scott was risking a shutdown by seeking to change the spending measure.

“You can be unhappy with the legislation,” he added, “but the fact of the matter is, it has been negotiated over the last year by Democrats and Republicans.”

Before passing the sprawling measure, lawmakers also voted down additional Republican amendments, including a measure to prevent funding from going toward coronavirus vaccine mandates and an amendment providing disaster relief for Louisiana for recovery for hurricane damage.

Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, instead called for a separate disaster aid bill to be passed in the future. Any changes to the spending package would have forced another House vote and risked a government shutdown.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/us/politics/senate-spending-bill-approved.html

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/11/1086162338/once-derided-as-graft-earmarks-just-helped-congress-pass-a-bipartisan-budget-dea

Did anyone here even hear about this? I feel like this is the first time in a long time where I haven't heard about a big political fight over the budget and whether or not to keep the government open. This means politicians are actually working together (seriously 68 to 31 in the Senate) in a way that hasn't been seen since before the Obama administration. Granted, republicans fought against, and won, the inclusion of more pandemic aid, which would have really helped the general population. That said, here we are, a bill that passed in large part because of the use of earmarks which helped grease the wheels of this bill and allowed it to move through congress rather quickly and quietly.

Politicians have more in common with each other than they do with you. If both sides are "working together" it's to their benefit as a whole (like voting down term limits, or approving pay increases for congress, or stopping bills to prevent insider trading), and not so much something to benefit you or the people. So just because congress rammed something through together, doesn't immediately make it good.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38662

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#12 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38662 Posts

@judaspete said:

@X360PS3AMD05: Pay attention dude. Money doesn't count when you spend it on bombs. This is Neocon economics 101.

money spent on bombs is literally the worst way to spend money as there is no return on the spending. might as well just burn it.

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

7976

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#13 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 7976 Posts

I like how the US government will easily approve sending 13.4 billion in aid to Ukraine but fought trump over 4 billion to secure our own country's border. Pisses me off tbh

Avatar image for tjandmia
tjandmia

3723

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#14 tjandmia
Member since 2017 • 3723 Posts

@sargentd said:

I like how the US government will easily approve sending 13.4 billion in aid to Ukraine but fought trump over 4 billion to secure our own country's border. Pisses me off tbh

I'm not familiar with it. Was it really even needed? Under Biden arrests and deportations are at a 21 year high.

It is odd, though, that billions can just appear out of nowhere for Ukraine with not a peep from anyone, but when Democrats want to spend that kind of money on things like small business loans, infrastructure, education, healthcare, or providing school lunches for 1st grade kids, all of a sudden "We're broke, we can't afford it, it's a government overreach, socialism, etc".

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23010 Posts

@tjandmia: He's talking about the wall, lol.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@sargentd said:

I like how the US government will easily approve sending 13.4 billion in aid to Ukraine but fought trump over 4 billion to secure our own country's border. Pisses me off tbh

What are you talking about, Democrat congress has funded billions in border security. You're pissed off because you're tribal and it wasn't from "Muh Trump"?

Avatar image for tjandmia
tjandmia

3723

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#17 tjandmia
Member since 2017 • 3723 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@tjandmia: He's talking about the wall, lol.

lol. That thing is so stupid I forgot about it...

Avatar image for Vaasman
Vaasman

15541

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By Vaasman
Member since 2008 • 15541 Posts

How soon til the military budget becomes 100% of federal spending? I don't want education or transportation or medicine I just want to have a bigger bomb-dick than every other country that ever existed combined.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts

Republicans demand that U.S. send more aid to Ukraine after voting against it - The Washington Post

Lmao wtf?

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

8671

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#20  Edited By Eoten
Member since 2020 • 8671 Posts
@zaryia said:

Republicans demand that U.S. send more aid to Ukraine after voting against it - The Washington Post

Lmao wtf?

They voted against the bill. Does that mean they were against the aid? There was a lot more in that spending bill than aid for Ukraine, was there not? This isn't rocket science. But I guess for someone who thinks WaPo is a credible news organization, it might as well be.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@tjandmia: He's talking about the wall, lol.

That wonderful wall that would require tens of billions more to construct, repair, maintain, man....etc. A monument to Trump's ignorance.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@eoten said:
@zaryia said:

Republicans demand that U.S. send more aid to Ukraine after voting against it - The Washington Post

Lmao wtf?

They voted against the bill. Does that mean they were against the aid? There was a lot more in that spending bill than aid for Ukraine, was there not?

It had bipartisan support in both chambers, as several Republicans were able to get over their petty politics to send Ukraine aid. So yeah, it's still ironic that those who voted against it (mostly show boating about stuff they never really cared about) whine about aid days after declining it. They can't get over their tribalism, and now look like total idiots. Sucks to suck.

@eoten said:

This isn't rocket science. But I guess for someone who thinks WaPo is a credible news organization, it might as well be.

An anti-vaxxer who has literally said the vaccine was a placebo, climate-denier, and thinks Trump won 2020 should never ever engage in ad-homs (much less the flimsy ding you just threw out over something subjective) for the remainder of their existence. Just laughable really.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

8671

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#23  Edited By Eoten
Member since 2020 • 8671 Posts
@zaryia said:
@eoten said:
@zaryia said:

Republicans demand that U.S. send more aid to Ukraine after voting against it - The Washington Post

Lmao wtf?

They voted against the bill. Does that mean they were against the aid? There was a lot more in that spending bill than aid for Ukraine, was there not?

It had bipartisan support in both chambers, as several Republicans were able to get over their petty politics to send Ukraine aid. So yeah, it's still ironic that those who voted against it (mostly show boating about stuff they never really cared about) whine about aid days after declining it. They can't get over their tribalism, and now look like total idiots. Sucks to suck.

@eoten said:

This isn't rocket science. But I guess for someone who thinks WaPo is a credible news organization, it might as well be.

An anti-vaxxer who has literally said the vaccine was a placebo, climate-denier, and thinks Trump won 2020 should never ever engage in ad-homs (much less the flimsy ding you just threw out over something subjective) for the remainder of their existence. Just laughable really.

You done? Evidently math, science, or basic reality is your strong suit. You parrot what you read from fake news organization who trickle down only the amount of information needed to keep you marching in line with their bullshit. So I'll do the math for you, WaPo isn't, and you sure as **** ain't. Ukraine aid was $13.6 billion of a $1.5 trillion spending bill. This means $1.4864 trillion is NOT aid for Ukraine.

You didn't think for a moment that maybe, just maybe somebody voting against that $1.5 trillion bill could have something they don't want to support in that other $1.4864 trillion? They just had to be against the Ukraine aid so when your little fake news toilet paper there at WaPo tells you they voted against it, you actually fucking believed this meant they had to be against that $13.6 billion aid? And you think that's a credible news organization? Seriously?

Next you'll be telling me a 4 year old Youtube channel that translates Fox News is proof Fox is promoting Russian propaganda. Oh, wait, you already fell for that one, and your retort is I didn't fall for the "vaccine" bullshit and green energy corporate propaganda also promoted by the same shit rag? Wow, you really dunked on me. ROFLMAO.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@eoten said:

You parrot what you read from fake news organization

WaPo is not fake news.

@eoten said:

Wow, you really dunked on me.

What's new? You do this to yourself.

@eoten said:

Next you'll be telling me a 4 year old Youtube channel that translates Fox News is proof Fox is promoting Russian propaganda. Oh, wait, you already fell for that one

That was a light hearted joke post that had nothing to do with my argument, I almost never use youtube citation (unless it cites studies). In that thread you got embarrassed and had to run from 10 or so fact checkers. I fell for THOSE, mostly because they made every conservative in that thread look very unintelligence and take a fat L.

@eoten said:

I didn't fall for the "vaccine" bullshit and green energy corporate propaganda

Yikes.

You make flat earthers look like PHD professors. And you lose more debates than them somehow.

@eoten said:

You didn't think for a moment that maybe, just maybe somebody voting against that $1.5 trillion bill could have something they don't want to support in that other $1.4864 trillion? They just had to be against the Ukraine aid so when your little fake news toilet paper there at WaPo tells you they voted against it, you actually fucking believed this meant they had to be against that $13.6 billion aid?

Straw-man, I never said any of that.

I'm aware some Republicans had to temporarily play their typical tribal spending showboating now that (D) is in charge. Fortunately not all did, and this passed in a bipartisan manner in both chambers. If you know anything about politics and didn't just get into it for the 2016 uneducated Trumper memes, you would know that both sides use this kind of shit to ding each other for packed bills. For decades. Not voting for xyz and crying about xyz a week later will be bad optics in either situation.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

8671

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#25 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 8671 Posts

@zaryia said:
@eoten said:

You parrot what you read from fake news organization

WaPo is not fake news.

@eoten said:

Wow, you really dunked on me.

What's new? You do this to yourself.

@eoten said:

Next you'll be telling me a 4 year old Youtube channel that translates Fox News is proof Fox is promoting Russian propaganda. Oh, wait, you already fell for that one

That was a light hearted joke post that had nothing to do with my argument, I almost never use youtube citation (unless it cites studies). In that thread you got embarrassed and had to run from 10 or so fact checkers. I fell for THOSE, mostly because they made every conservative in that thread look very unintelligence and take a fat L.

@eoten said:

I didn't fall for the "vaccine" bullshit and green energy corporate propaganda

Yikes.

You make flat earthers look like PHD professors. And you lose more debates than them somehow.

@eoten said:

You didn't think for a moment that maybe, just maybe somebody voting against that $1.5 trillion bill could have something they don't want to support in that other $1.4864 trillion? They just had to be against the Ukraine aid so when your little fake news toilet paper there at WaPo tells you they voted against it, you actually fucking believed this meant they had to be against that $13.6 billion aid?

Straw-man, I never said any of that.

I'm aware some Republicans had to temporarily play their typical tribal spending showboating now that (D) is in charge. Fortunately not all did, and this passed in a bipartisan manner in both chambers. If you know anything about politics and didn't just get into it for the 2016 uneducated Trumper memes, you would know that both sides use this kind of shit to ding each other for packed bills. For decades. Not voting for xyz and crying about xyz a week later will be bad optics in either situation.

WaPo is fake news, which is why you were completely oblivious to the possibility that anyone could vote against the bill for any other reason besides not wanting to fund aid for Ukraine. They made a complete fool out of you, and you defended them for it.

Avatar image for lamprey263
lamprey263

44503

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#26 lamprey263
Member since 2006 • 44503 Posts

Great, 14 years of partisan gridlock coming to an end, which started when the conservative right threw a hissy fit about how the Obama Biden Laden Manchurian candidate who wasn't born in America and was radicalized by jihadists decades before his rise on to power and before his Hawaiian birth certificate was forged. And what did they fear most from him? Pork, pork, and more pork. There's one side of the political spectrum to blame for that bullshit and right now they're praying for Putin to win so Biden can lose by proxy.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@eoten said:

WaPo is fake news,

No it's not.

@eoten said:

which is why you were completely oblivious to the possibility that anyone could vote against the bill for any other reason besides not wanting to fund aid for Ukraine.

Neither I nor WaPo said this. Almost every post if yours is a lie or based off of lies.

They said the Republicans who voted against it now want more. That's just a fact. That is what objectively happened. Then you got super angry and upset at this fact, pointing out obvious things and making up straw-men. WaPo even went into high detail of why some of the Republicans didn't vote (with quotes), more so than your reflexive whining did.

Then I gave my opinion on this,

I'm aware some Republicans had to temporarily play their typical tribal spending showboating now that (D) is in charge. Fortunately not all did, and this passed in a bipartisan manner in both chambers. If you know anything about politics and didn't just get into it for the 2016 uneducated Trumper memes, you would know that both sides use this kind of shit to ding each other for packed bills. For decades. Not voting for xyz and crying about xyz a week later will be bad optics in either situation

@eoten said:

They made a complete fool out of you,

This didn't happen. It happens to you in every thread though.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

8671

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#28 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 8671 Posts

@zaryia said:
@eoten said:

WaPo is fake news,

No it's not.

@eoten said:

which is why you were completely oblivious to the possibility that anyone could vote against the bill for any other reason besides not wanting to fund aid for Ukraine.

Neither I nor WaPo said this. Almost every post if yours is a lie or based off of lies.

They said the Republicans who voted against it now want more. That's just a fact. That is what objectively happened. Then you got super angry and upset at this fact, pointing out obvious things and making up straw-men. WaPo even went into high detail of why some of the Republicans didn't vote (with quotes), more so than your reflexive whining did.

Then I gave my opinion on this,

I'm aware some Republicans had to temporarily play their typical tribal spending showboating now that (D) is in charge. Fortunately not all did, and this passed in a bipartisan manner in both chambers. If you know anything about politics and didn't just get into it for the 2016 uneducated Trumper memes, you would know that both sides use this kind of shit to ding each other for packed bills. For decades. Not voting for xyz and crying about xyz a week later will be bad optics in either situation

@eoten said:

They made a complete fool out of you,

This didn't happen. It happens to you in every thread though.

You came in here talking about how odd it is for Republicans to support aid for Ukraine while voting against a $1.5 trillion dollar bill. Either someone you've been listening to is talking out of their ass and misleading people on the reality of it so people like you would assume they voted against Ukrainian aid, or you took it upon yourself to try to mislead everyone here, and tried to argue disingenuously, and in bad faith. So either WaPo is fake news, or you're trolling. Which is it?

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@eoten said:

You came in here talking about how odd it is for Republicans to support aid for Ukraine while voting against a $1.5 trillion dollar bill. Either someone you've been listening to is talking out of their ass and misleading people on the reality of it so people like you would assume they voted against Ukrainian aid, or you took it upon yourself to try to mislead everyone here, and tried to argue disingenuously, and in bad faith. So either WaPo is fake news, or you're trolling. Which is it?

Straw-man. I didn't say that.

Anti-vaxxer, climate denier, defends debunked Kremlin lies, thinks Trump won 2020 said I'm being misleading. lol.

I already told you what I thought about this, straw-manning won't work:

I'm aware some Republicans had to temporarily play their typical tribal spending showboating now that (D) is in charge. Fortunately not all did, and this passed in a bipartisan manner in both chambers. If you know anything about politics and didn't just get into it for the 2016 uneducated Trumper memes, you would know that both sides use this kind of shit to ding each other for packed bills. For decades. Not voting for xyz and crying about xyz a week later will be bad optics in either situation

It had bipartisan support in both chambers, as several Republicans were able to get over their petty politics to send Ukraine aid. So yeah, it's still ironic that those who voted against it (mostly show boating about stuff they never really cared about) whine about aid days after declining it. They can't get over their tribalism, and now look like total idiots. Sucks to suck.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

8671

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#30  Edited By Eoten
Member since 2020 • 8671 Posts

@zaryia said:
@eoten said:

You came in here talking about how odd it is for Republicans to support aid for Ukraine while voting against a $1.5 trillion dollar bill. Either someone you've been listening to is talking out of their ass and misleading people on the reality of it so people like you would assume they voted against Ukrainian aid, or you took it upon yourself to try to mislead everyone here, and tried to argue disingenuously, and in bad faith. So either WaPo is fake news, or you're trolling. Which is it?

Straw-man. I didn't say that.

Anti-vaxxer, climate denier, defends debunked Kremlin lies, thinks Trump won 2020 said I'm being misleading. lol.

I already told you what I thought about this, straw-manning won't work:

I'm aware some Republicans had to temporarily play their typical tribal spending showboating now that (D) is in charge. Fortunately not all did, and this passed in a bipartisan manner in both chambers. If you know anything about politics and didn't just get into it for the 2016 uneducated Trumper memes, you would know that both sides use this kind of shit to ding each other for packed bills. For decades. Not voting for xyz and crying about xyz a week later will be bad optics in either situation

It had bipartisan support in both chambers, as several Republicans were able to get over their petty politics to send Ukraine aid. So yeah, it's still ironic that those who voted against it (mostly show boating about stuff they never really cared about) whine about aid days after declining it. They can't get over their tribalism, and now look like total idiots. Sucks to suck.

So your response getting caught perpetuating disinformation is to hurl insults? ROFLMAO. You failed. Read more WaPo and try again.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@eoten said:

perpetuating disinformation

This never happened. Can you cite what I was wrong about, which I stated to be a fact? I gave you two paragraphs on my opinion on the WaPo article and claims in it. The title is factually accurate.

The most you can say is it's kinda click baity, but contained nothing really false. I mean, it's not like they said the vaccine doesn't work or that climate change is fake. Lets not go overboard with the faux out rage you have been displaying in this quote chain.

@eoten said:

is to hurl insults?

Neither of those terms were insults. You are objectively those things. There are text book definitions for each of them.

@eoten said:

You failed.

That would be literally you in every thread you post in.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

8671

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#32 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 8671 Posts
@zaryia said:
@eoten said:

perpetuating disinformation

This never happened. Can you cite what I was wrong about, which I stated to be a fact? I gave you two paragraphs on my opinion on the WaPo article and claims in it. You flopped.

@eoten said:

is to hurl insults?

Neither of those terms were insults. You are objectively those things. There are text book definitions for each of them.

@eoten said:

You failed.

That would be literally you in every thread you post in.

Really? You think "anti-vaxxer" is an objective term and not a ridiculous insult made up by petty simpletons who find it easier to use buzzwords and slurs rather than refute someone's argument? Tell me, if I'm such an anti-vaxxer, why is the Covid shot the only one I've avoided? Obviously I can't be an anti vaxxer if I am particular about which "vaccines" I avoid. Pfizer has been caught falsifying their data on the efficacy and safety of their drug. Moderna has never marketed a drug in their entire existence as a company prior to releasing a Covid shot. Johnson and Johnson is currently in court for intentionally putting carcinogenic chemicals into baby powder.

To pretend there isn't a legitimate reason for someone to avoid experimental injections from what are some of the scummiest corporations on the planet for a disease they have little to know risk from dying from, and try to slur them with derogatory buzz phrases like "anti vaxxer" just shows how petty and fragile your ego is that after getting busted falling for, or spreading bullshit information on here, the best you could do, were ridiculous insults.

You're a troll. And you broke some clearly written rules.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@eoten said:

Really? You think "anti-vaxxer" is an objective term

Yeah.

Anti-vaxxer Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Really? You think "anti-vaxxer" is an objective term and not a ridiculous insult made up by petty simpletons who find it easier to use buzzwords and slurs rather than refute someone's argument? Tell me, if I'm such an anti-vaxxer, why is the Covid shot the only one I've avoided? Obviously I can't be an anti vaxxer if I am particular about which "vaccines" I avoid. Pfizer has been caught falsifying their data on the efficacy and safety of their drug. Moderna has never marketed a drug in their entire existence as a company prior to releasing a Covid shot. Johnson and Johnson is currently in court for intentionally putting carcinogenic chemicals into baby powder.

Lol you just gave a nice example of the above definition. Crazy shit bro. WILD.

@eoten said:

after getting busted falling for, or spreading bullshit information on here,

I did no such thing. The article is factually sound. At most you can say the title is a bit click baity (albeit true). I gave you my opinion on it as well. Neither I nor the article made any false claims, stated as fact.

@eoten said:

You're a troll. And you broke some clearly written rules.

I broke no rules.

This is like me saying someone broke rules for calling me a leftist.

Avatar image for tjandmia
tjandmia

3723

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#34 tjandmia
Member since 2017 • 3723 Posts

You know you're wasting your time when you're dealing with someone who not only straw mans you every reply, but also claims the Covid vaccines are "experimental". The level of gullibility and anti-intellectualism in the U.S. is astounding. @zaryia