some figured, what the hell, won't pass in the Senate

for it for show to their base.

They get to play to their ignorant racist base while appearing to be actually doing something when they know damn well it ain't happening, so no consequences.

HOUSE SPEAKER-DESIGNATE PELOSI: You have the Senate. You have the House of Representatives. You have the votes. You should pass it right now.

THE PRESIDENT: No, we don’t have the votes, Nancy, because in the Senate, we need 60 votes and we don’t have it.

HOUSE SPEAKER-DESIGNATE PELOSI: No, no, but in the House, you could bring it up right now, today.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, but I can’t -- excuse me. But I can’t get it passed in the House if it’s not going to pass in the Senate. I don’t want to waste time.

HOUSE SPEAKER-DESIGNATE PELOSI: Well, the fact is you can get it started that way.

trying to say.

Here's what repuke said...

There’s nothing like getting a challenge from the other side’s leader that says you don’t have the votes,” said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla. “Very helpful.”

It was (ya right) you have the votes. Sarcasm not declaratory.

This stinks on any number of levels.

I don't have a link and I have no idea who was being interviewed.

But it was basically "We know this won't pass in the Senate, so we just voted on it to get it to them so that we could show the president we supported him."

In other words, kissing up to Trump so that no House Republicans would take the blame.

Like they made it impossible to pass.

So they can ask their donors for money in person.

Is better than artistic steel salt fence?

..they can just choke the money off. IF... and I say IF... the wall passes.

The Democrats will control the House. Not the Senate. Not the WH. How would we choke the money off if we can't pass legislation without the Senate and Trump's support?

Democrats could play some serious defense by blocking Trump’s priorities or refusing to take up bills passed by the Senate.
Since must-pass spending bills require approval from both chambers, they could hold the Wall funding as a club over anything trump or the Repubs want to do/spend.

They need 60.

Many had already gone home, thinking their work was done, not knowing what chaos would ensue. So, she was right. It didn't pass with a full House vote. They still don't have the Senate votes. This House vote was an appeasement to Trump. "We tried." They know (Trump included) that it won't pass the Senate, but they're giving him this second House vote to appease his voracious ego.

the Republicans who did. The 40 that lost

It's my understanding that some of each party took off for home, not knowing Trump was gonna back out on what he had agreed to do. May Rush Limbaugh rot in hell. This was his fault.

Trump doubled down on them and now they do. Nancy's no doubt been doing running totals all along as the situation changed.

If you imagined "counting votes" was not a dynamic process, Laura, that it's a simple minded one-count and done, then this should hopefully be an especially valuable lesson for you.

Sounds? Surely you didn't mean that

I meant to sound exasperated because grabbing opportunities for Pelosi bashing is all too common among some. If you're not one of those and expected people to understand this came from someone with a healthy respect and appreciation for the very famous abilities that took her to the top, then I apologize for not knowing that.

But while we're talking, let's note that Pelosi was almost certainly completely correct when she said it with great confidence on national TV to the president. Congress was to adjourn two days later and many house members had already gone home, and of course a great deal has happened after that that has leaders around the planet glued to the shocking events here. And us.

This morning Trump's threatening a very long government shutdown.

Open and honest debate about courses of action and constructive criticism. Not everyone agrees...but those who disagree with the majority have almost zero chance of expressing without being treated like a pariah. That’s just the way it feels.

if you want to carry water for Trump or help him lie about Pelosi, well, you already did.

Laura PMAD is on our side.

I'm not saying that poster does this all the time, but that poster is doing that here and it's indefensible.

Maybe just a misunderstanding.

we'll wait.

and besides who cares if the OP got it wrong on purpose?

peddling wrong info about Pelosi is wrong whether you mean to do it or not.

Was made several times that the votes were not there. The quote was only part of the whole conversation. And...The first line was spoken with sarcasm...like ya right, if. You think the votes are there

So get off my back

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2018, 12:23 AM - Edit history (1)

The part of transcript cited above does not tell the whole story. If you read the full transcript, Pelosi was pretty clear in stating that Trump would lose a House vote if it included $5 billion in wall funding. I point this out not to slam Pelosi, who was, in my opinion, doing what politicians do when the negotiate -- they bluff. But I believe that, without question, she had to know that if push came to shove, Trump had the votes in the House for $5 billion in wall funding.


HOUSE SPEAKER-DESIGNATE PELOSI: "But the fact is, the House Republicans could bring up this bill, if they had the votes, immediately, and set the tone for what you want."

If that statement (which implicitly suggests the Republicans didn't have the votes) was too subtle, her later comments were not:

HOUSE SPEAKER-DESIGNATE PELOSI: -- you begin, you make your point, you state your case. That’s what the House Republicans could do, if they had the votes. But there are no votes in the House, a majority of votes, for a wall -- no matter where you start.

And:

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, let me ask you this. Just -- and we’re doing this in a very friendly manner. It doesn’t help for me to take a vote in the House, where I will win easily with the Republicans --

HOUSE SPEAKER-DESIGNATE PELOSI: You will not win.

And finally, and most clearly:

HOUSE SPEAKER-DESIGNATE PELOSI: Mr. President, let me -- let me just say one thing. The fact is you do not have the votes in the House.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/12/11/read-full-transcript-meeting-between-trump-pence-pelosi-and-schumer/ydozGoydBzB946pWLP3U1J/story.html

Nancy did NOT say he couldn't pass the wall funding in the House.

TRUMP SAID she said that. SHE DIDN'T.

Go work for Sarah Sanders, go apply for a job, you'd be awesome at it.

You should stop calling people liars.

...to eliminate the filibuster for “matters of national security?”

to stack the Supreme court once they have the Presidency,senate and congress by simple majority votes.

Someone else posted earlier something resembling the following:

McConnells not going to blow up Senate Procedure for Trump's Stupid Wall.

I agree with this. McConnells an asshole he's NOT stupid that way. His need to win is much more long-form.

which looks like what made the difference in the vote count and the rest of the repukes knew it would be dead in the senate.

I think a lot of Democrats got confused by thinking "not having the votes" meant that parts of the GOP were against funding the wall. They are all for it. Most of the dissent on their side comes from the hardline nutcases in the Freedom Caucus who want to veto everything that isn't extreme enough for them.

they knew the senate would "save" them, so why not just prove Nancy wrong and still not have to own the vote.

Look up who wasn't there

And they just wanted to poke Nancy for her comment that the votes weren't there in the House.They just want it be all Dems who vote against the wall money and make it look like Dems are for open borders and have them blamed for the shut down. Going to back fire tho.

to continue funding the government.

That's what she intended to happen, so they own the shutdown.

That seems to be what he wants

I saw on CSPAN that the "time remaining" (to vote) clock was at 0:00 and voting was still going on when I tuned in, but not sure exactly how long the vote was kept open.

or partisanship on steroids.
How did those who lost in November vote?

Just asking that question will get you alerted on around here these days.