Ron DeSantis Cooks Breakfast At Waffle House For Hurricane First Responders

What you're saying is if someone votes for an amendment then they are voting yes for a bill which is not even technically true.

Let's say there's a bill that says all fans should be required to wear a Florida Gator Shirt. There is now a proposed amendment that says all fans should be required to wear a nole shirt instead. If someone votes yes on the amendment, what you're saying is that they voted for all fans to wear a gator shirt

 

Lol. No it isnt. You are proving my point. Any opposition is now "MAGA"???

Just more bully words to create conformity.

What does reminding people of the terrible person they voted for have to do with MAGA?

 

Yep, the history there is awful. Which leaves us a choice. Either we try to do the best we can going forward or perpetuate the crappy treatment. You are arguing for the second option. There is nothing that legally says you have to or even should treat them as second class citizens in regards to hurricane relief or Presidential attention. That is a choice, and one you are advocating.

 

What is the "far left" perspective that you think I cannot see beyond? Go ahead. Open my mind.

 

No, I'm paring 95's statement down to the basics, devoid of context. DeSantis did vote "yay," on a funding amendment. Is this not correct? Yes, or no.

 

Come on man, in this exact instance, it is our "our government," represented by our president, that is treating US citizens in PR no differently than US citizens in Florida for the purpose of disaster relief.

You're the one that's loudly and repeatedly complaining about that and demanding that PR residents be instead treated . . . literally . . . as second-class citizens.

That's not on "the government." It's on you.

But let's get real, you don't really give a shit that Biden *gasp* visited PR before his scheduled trip to Fla. You just latched on to this ridiculous raft because you wanted to something . . . anything . . . to complain about. Deny it all you like, but it's obvious, man. Take the L and move on.

 

I was referring to the part about "Just try to understand who they voted for. Then try to wrap your head around their bitterness that their vote didn't win". This IS MAGA nation to a tee. You said you are not part of it so wtf do you care? I respect you and have told you so before but don't act like Democrats are the ones crying about losing elections and claiming they were corrupt. If you are now part of that crowd I will disengage and leave you to it but I thought you were better than the conspiracy nuts around here.

 

Here is the text of the bill he did support
https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr219/BILLS-113hr219rds.xml

Is it not semantics to say he didnt support relief? He did support it. He voted for the amendment that supported it and this bill. Right?

 

"The President, acting through the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, may approve projects under the alternative procedures adopted under this section for any major disaster or emergency declared on or after the date of enactment of this section. The Administrator may also apply the alternate procedures adopted under this section to a major disaster or emergency declared before enactment of this Act for which construction has not begun as of the date of enactment of this Act."

 

No, it is not. It just adds language to the main bill. It in no way obligates or even indicates support for the greater bill.

What you linked is the main bill, not the amendment. The amendment was already quoted earlier.

 

Perception is everything. Perhaps actually openly call out something from the left from time to time here?

 

No i linked HR 219. DeSantis voted FOR 219. The main bill was HR 41 was it not?

 

@gator95 mentioned a bill then changed his story when he realized he was wrong

 

I think we are misunderstanding each other maybe...Not sure what you are saying. What does telling dems that their choice in for Gov in Florida would be a disaster have to do with saying the election was corrupt?

 

No. When you vote for an amendment, you're not voting for the bill as amended. You're just voting to adjust the text of bill in anticipation of the final vote.

Now, sometimes voting for an amendment signals that you would vote for the bill as amended, but not necessarily. Often people will vote for amendments to make the bill more palatable if it passes, but still vote against the bill.

We see this happen repeatedly with all sorts of bills. For example, the Senate voted unanimously to amend a portion of the Obamacare bill. That didn't mean that the Republicans would be in favor of the bill with that amendment (and they ultimately weren't). It just meant that if the bill were to pass, they wanted this portion amended.

It's sort of like saying that you don't want to order Chinese, but if your family insists and out votes you, you would rather have the bourbon chicken instead of the General Tso's.

 

I actually ran into this exact same thing in the faculty senate. The board of governors was trying to foist new language into the faculty code. We all were against it (197-3), but we knew they would override our vote, so we all voted yes on an amendment to it. These 2 votes were 5 mins apart. Yes on amendment, no on bill.

 

Okay, yes you are correct, 219 was a separate bill. It is neither the amendment nor the initial bill under discussion. It is also not a Sandy relief bill, as all it does is change the procedures for Presidents declaring disasters in the future. Basically, it appears to be a bill to fix the issue of people like DeSantis needing to hold up disaster relief. It allows the President wider ranging powers to spend on recovery efforts without a new bill.

 

See post #114 to see what Desantis voted yes on

 

An amendment will often become a bill, or lead to a "clean bill" with the amendment(s) included.

This gotcha semantics game is silly.

 

That amendment literally could not become a bill. It only exists as additional language to an existing bill. I don't think anybody would consider a 1.63% cut to all discretionary spending, without any increase in spending to actually aid Sandy victims, was a Hurricane Sandy relief bill.