Republicans Republicans is triggering my paranoia and OCD
It’s like one of those things that goes:
I bet that you’re not reading this very carefully. You almost certainly won’t even notice the the mistake in it at first.
Except they fucked up where to put the line break
That’s called chunking. Basically, you don’t read every word in a sentence you just process units, or chunks, that you are familiar with, in this case “the mistake”. The first the is in a different chunk than the one right next to “mistake” and since that chunk is not restricting or altering proper resolution (based on your expectation), it gets scrapped at the end of processing the text.
Another culminating factor that makes it hard to spot the duplicate has something to do with eyesight. Essentially, our eyes have 2 modi: fixation and sacchades. Fixation is the standard modus and the optical nerve sends the stimuli to the brain uninterruptedly. Since the duplicates are at the end and the beginning of the next line, you have to move your eyes a longer distance to keep reading; you are performing a so-called sacchade. In order to prevent blurry sight and nausea stemming thereof when you move your eyes to another focal point (same principle like a blurry image from moving a camera while taking a picture), the optical nerve stops sending pictures to the brain during the movement. Upon reaching your new focal point, the brain backfills your memory of the travel time with the first picture it receives from the new position. This masking is called chronostasis because a very noticeable occurrence of this is that the time seems to stop for a brief moment when looking at a clock and the first second feels way longer than the following ones.
Yes, more people will be able to buy it the medicine and the people selling sugar will lose some. Can’t people make bigger profit of something useful to humanity or the earth instead?
Now I am not very versed in US-politics, but in Europe it is pretty normal to vote no or in the best case abstain from voting if you are not part of the government, save for some exceptions. What I find interesting are the 11 people who voted yes across party lines - that may hold more significance than the 193 who didn’t. Don’t get me wrong, it still sounds pretty dumb, but it may not be an “we hate poor-people” issue.
In the U S., Democrats will vote yes if it’s something they support, even if it’s proposed by a Republican.
Republicans will shoot down their own bill if they think it will make a Democrat look good.
Republicans will shoot down their own bill if they think it will make a Democrat look good.
like when they voted against the gas price cap after spending months and months whining about gas prices
and the border security bill
it doesn’t need to make logical sense when the majority of your voters are only voting for guns, jesus, and oppressing women
No he’s talking about when these pieces of shit literally filibuster their own bill because Democrats agreed with them.
In a pairlamentary democracy republic, which most states in Europe are, the government is elected by the pairlament and thus, (usually) has the majority of seats in the pairlament anyway. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how the opposition votes.
As the US is a presidential republic, the administration government is appointed by the president and, thus does not necessarily have the majority of seats in the pairlament. Therefore, the administration government and the pairlament need to elaborate compromises.
Edit: replaced republic with democracy, as many states have a king and thus are no republics. Changed parts are emphasised.
Replaced US government by administration.
As the US is a presidential republic, the government is appointed by the president and, thus does not necessarily have the majority of seats in the pairlament. Therefore, the government and the pairlament need to elaborate compromises
This oversimplification isn’t really wrong, but it isn’t correct either. Many very consequential positions are appointed by the president, such as the heads and governing bodies for many government agencies (and the president has official power to instruct agencies to do certain things, however those agencies do have the right to choose not to follow those instructions) but ultimately the president’s power is held in check by the judicial and legislative branches of government which are both elected positions from the states. It’s honestly impressively well thought out that the 3 branches of government rely on each other, and ultimately can’t make significant changes without engaging the other branches, but each is given specific duties that that branch can govern independently
The issue with that system is while there is checks and balances available, One Branch in particular holds the majority of the authority in that balance system, and that being the legislative branch, and when that Branch doesn’t work together you might as well throw that checks and balance system out the window.
We are seeing this issue with the current Supreme Court where it’s very clear that there is visible corruption in the seats, but the executive branch can’t do anything about it because the legislative branch can’t get along long enough to be able to do it. This is exactly why we are warned against having a two-party system in the first place
Our system while on paper seems nice falls apart instantly the second any of the three branches decide they no longer want to do their job, or can’t agree with an outcome,
As I understood, the question was about laws which need to be approved by the legislative power, not executive orders or alike.
Actually I just was told, that what we here in good ol’ Europe call government, the highest officials of the executive power, i.e. MP and ministers, is called administration by you in the US. I’ve corrected that.
Therefore, the government and the pairlament need to elaborate compromises.
This sentence is probably confusing to a lot of Americans, because “the government” in the US includes the legislature, courts, and all executive agencies. I believe what Europeans call a government is what Americans typically call an administration. I’m not quite sure on that, though. An administration is a President and people appointed to executive positions by the President, but I get the impression that, in international usage, “the government” also includes MPs of the ruling party/coalition.
TY, I’ve corrected that. Yes, government in Europe usually means the highest executives, i.e. minister president or chancellor who usually belong to the ruling party, and the ministers as they (actually their appointed secretaries of state) are the ones elaborating laws which are then read and approved by the legislative, the pairlament. In a parlamentary democracy, the head of state, i.e. king or president, usually is not part of the government and only has representative and formal tasks.
Ok but who are those 11 that voted correctly?
Apparently it ended up being 12. You can look them up here:
- Don Bacon, Nebraska
- Brian Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania
- Andy Harris, Maryland
- Jaime Herrula Beutler, Washington
- Richard Hudson, North Carolina
- John Kakto, New York
- Nicole Malliotakis, New York
- Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
- Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Iowa
- Bill Posey, Florida
- Christopher H. Smith, New Jersey
- Frederick Stephen Upton, Michigan
This happened two years ago. They needed to win with a 60 vote margin. It didn’t pass.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/house-insulin-prices/
The bill didn’t need to pass with a 60 vote margin. The House is simple majority, and it passed the house. It’s a little murky to me what happened next, but it seems like the Democrats were arguing that it could be treated as budget reconciliation in the Senate, only needing simple majority. However, the parliamentarian said it’s not budget reconciliation, and so it would have needed 60 votes total in the Senate to get past the filibuster, which it didn’t have.
Then, strangely, the Senate amended the entire title and text of the bill and turned it into a general appropriations bill, which passed both houses and became law, but with the entire original text of the bill struck.
Maybe someone a little more familiar than me with the machinations of government can fill in some of the gaps of what exactly happened and why. My point is, you’re right that it didn’t pass, but neither house of Congress requires a 60 vote margin. The Senate requires 60 votes total for a bill to be filibuster proof.
The Senate has a de facto requirement for a 60 vote margin because Republicans will, without fail, use the filibuster to block any bill that doesn’t sufficiently own the libs. (I was gonna say any bill they don’t like, but they’ll even block their own bills if Democrats decide to support it.)
This is from 2022. It’s worth noting that in this vote it was bundled with a Marijuana decriminalization bill, which is probably why the Republicans voted against it.
That soubds like an excuse as they regularly vote against any kind of regulation that would help the average person. They voted against the ACA, remember?
Remember how much they talked about “repeal and replace” but never did even with full party control of all branches of the federal government? I remember that. It was simultaneously scary and hilarious to see that crowd fall apart when it came to actually trying to bring their vague talking points into real legislation and pass them
