Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

no_hypocrisy

(46,119 posts) Sat Jun 24, 2017, 08:06 AM Jun 2017

Why would Trump go after Dean Heller for not giving his vote for AHCA

but not Rand Paul and the other three republican senators?

Is it because Paul is open to "negotiation"?

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why would Trump go after Dean Heller for not giving his vote for AHCA (Original Post) no_hypocrisy Jun 2017 OP

This message was self-deleted by its author dalton99a Jun 2017 #1

Because Heller thinks the cuts will hurt his constituents. leftyladyfrommo Jun 2017 #2

GOP is where empathy is a liability. IADEMO2004 Jun 2017 #4

Because it's all gamed out ahead of time. Bleacher Creature Jun 2017 #3

Response to no_hypocrisy (Original post)

dalton99a This message was self-deleted by its author.

leftyladyfrommo

(18,868 posts)

2. Because Heller thinks the cuts will hurt his constituents.

Reply to no_hypocrisy (Original post)

Sat Jun 24, 2017, 08:53 AM

Jun 2017

The other senators don't think the cuts are deep enough.

And Heller's vote is really important.

IADEMO2004

(5,555 posts)

4. GOP is where empathy is a liability.

Reply to leftyladyfrommo (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 24, 2017, 10:02 AM

Jun 2017

Bleacher Creature

(11,257 posts)

3. Because it's all gamed out ahead of time.

Reply to no_hypocrisy (Original post)

Sat Jun 24, 2017, 10:02 AM

Jun 2017

Heller is the most vulnerable to a yes vote, so he's been given a get out of jail free card. I'm sure McConnell made that clear to Trump.

The others are guaranteed to flip to "yes" at some point. I wouldn't be shocked if they've worked it out in advance with McConnell.

Reply to this discussion