Ron DeSantis Cooks Breakfast At Waffle House For Hurricane First Responders

You know, I assumed he was just trolling as well...because obviously no one could really be that dense. But by the same token, no one could really be this bad at trolling could they? There's no creativity, no clever spin, nothing to really indicate any thought process whatsoever. Sad really

 

If you repeat more times than people are willing to correct it, doesn't that mean you are right? No need to be creative, just keep hammering until everyone else walks away, then declare yourself the winner.

 

I noticed a distinct lack of a quote there. Because you can't provide it. Because it isn't there, and he voted against the bill that contains the funding. Enjoy your L. We'll all just talk about your L now.

 

I love how you act like I haven't also called DeSantis a pandering politician and similar shots along the way.

Because that is what he is. That is what they all are. Including the tired old man that we elected king. (Don Henley reference 8ntended)

I just feel his voting for the amendment coupled with a bill that gave Obama more leeway in funding such things is a crucial part of the narrative also.

If he put the state he represented on a higher level than others, while wrong in general, it is certainly a savvy political move and one that benefited the people who elected him. I have no reason to think if the country elects him he won't spread that to the nation that elected him.

The only ones sensitive about DeSantis are the ones looking for every gotcha they can find and looking for every silly way they can falsely compare him to the orange moron.

You seem to want me not to support a politician, doing political things. I tried that in 2016.

 

Looks like you are trolling. Desantis voted Aye for an amendment to approve 17Billion in sandy funding. End of discussion.

 

It's there. You are too obtuse to notice. It's ok, not everyone understands complex things like this LOL.

 

I get it, you hate Desantis, but he voted for 17B in sandy funding. End of discussion. Thanks for playing.

 

Why do you think voting for an amendment that did nothing but cut every other area's funding is an important part of the narrative?

How about the fact that he has replaced multiple Democratic elected officials (meaning they were voted into office by the voters of their area) for no reason other than that they are in the other party and won't do what he wants in terms of policy? Is that evidence he won't represent all the people? How about his targeting of people who criticize him with legislation (e.g., Disney)?

 

Still no quote from the amendment of any spending in the amendment. Any claim that you provided one remains a lie that you are telling. And telling it more often doesn't make your argument stronger. Provide a quote, admit you can't, or continue to lie about it. It is your choice.

 

You know the truth. This isn’t a difference of interpretation; you’re just flat out lying.

 

Have you read the text of the amendment? I have. There is no funding in the amendment. There is no 17Billion of funding in the amendment. There is no 17Billion in sandy funding in the amendment.

DeSantis did not vote Aye for an amendment to approve 17Billion in sandy funding.

DeSantis did not vote Aye for a bill to approve 17Billion in sandy funding.

 

Let me ask you this. Did the amendment allow for funding? How much? What for?
What funding specifically did it seek to cut?

Is this another pork filled bill that people voted on hoping the other side would look bad fighting it, all while that other side fought for the pork to be removed from it?

Im not versed enough to honestly answer that. Ive become more confused as Ive read the text of all the bills discussed.

What I do believe is that NOTHING is going to make the left see this with any objectivity.

As for your 9ther question...I've discussed those things in threads about those things. (e. g. I disagreed with his Disney stance).

 

The full text of the amendment DeSantis voted Aye on:
After section 904 (but before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. 905. (a) There is hereby rescinded an amount equal to
1.63 percent of--
(1) the budget authority provided (or obligation limitation
imposed) for fiscal year 2013 for any discretionary account
in any fiscal year 2013 appropriation Act;
(2) the budget authority provided in any advance
appropriation for fiscal year 2013 for any discretionary
account in any prior fiscal year appropriation Act; and
(3) the contract authority provided in fiscal year 2013 for
any program that is subject to a limitation contained in any
fiscal year 2013 appropriation Act for any discretionary
account.
(b) Any rescission made by subsection (a) shall be applied
proportionately--
(1) to each discretionary account and each item of budget
authority described in such subsection; and
(2) within each such account and item, to each program,
project, and activity (with programs, projects, and
activities as delineated in the appropriation Act or
accompanying reports for the relevant fiscal year covering
such account or item, or for accounts and items not included
in appropriation Acts, as delineated in the most recently
submitted President's budget).
(c) In the case of any fiscal year 2013 appropriation Act
enacted after the date of enactment of this section, any
rescission required by subsection (a) shall take effect
immediately after the enactment of such Act.
(d) Within 30 days after the date of enactment of this
section (or, if later, 30 days after the enactment of any
fiscal year 2013 appropriation Act), the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate a report specifying the account and amount of
each rescission made pursuant to subsection (a).

No funding. No 17Billion in funding. No 17Billion in sandy funding.

 

But an amendment is to an existing bill unless it becomes its own bill or leads to a clean bill. Did the amendment remove the Sandy specific funding from the bill? Or was the purpose of the ammendment to trim the fat off of the original bill.

This is where it becomes semantics, because supporting an amendment to a bill that does that is a proxy support for the Sandy specific parts of the original bill.

Otherwise you vote down the amendment as well. Support for the amendment is support for the things left in the bill after it is amended.

 

But this doesnt remove funding as much as set specific rules correct?

 

Nope. You are lying. It's ok, you hate desantis. I get it, you aren't being rational politically and it's affecting your judgement. Sucks, but the truth hurts.

 

17 Billion in Sandy funding. Thanks.

 

The amendment doesn't affect the 17Billion in funding from the original bill. It's not that complicated, unless one hates desantis and isn't thinking rationally.

 

Huh? No, the amendment isn't a permission slip to fund anything. The bill funded things. He voted against that. The amendment provides no funding.

An across the board cut to every "discretionary" program.

No. As a reminder, it was introduced by a Republican because it was a Republican Congress.

Facts: there were two bills that provided Sandy relief. One expanded FEMA's resources to pay off flood insurance claims. It was 2 paragraphs long (i.e., no pork at all). The other is a spending bill that helped pay for some of the damage caused. DeSantis voted against both. He voted for an amendment to the second bill that cut spending to everything else. That amendment failed with many Republicans voting against it. That amendment contained no funding. It is common to vote for an amendment and then vote against the final bill, regardless of the outcome of the amendment.

Well that is your answer in terms of evidence that he won't represent everybody.

 

That isn't what I asked. Does it ALLOW for funding?