In some cases, GOP members of Congress have said legislation they supported will need to be fixed down the road. In others, they've backed off explicit threats to vote "no."

The move represents a trend in Congress during Donald Trump’s second term. Republican lawmakers across the ideological spectrum keep casting votes in favor of bills even while warning that they’re deeply flawed and may require fixing down the road. In some cases, lawmakers explicitly threaten to vote “no” on bills before eventually folding and voting “yes.”

It isn’t unusual for lawmakers to back legislation they call imperfect. But this year, that contrast has become more stark. It comes as Trump has solidified his grasp over the GOP base, resulting in lawmakers growing increasingly leery of crossing him and risking their political futures.

Nowhere has that dynamic been more pronounced than with the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, whose members have repeatedly threatened to oppose bills before acquiescing under pressure from Trump. With Trump’s megabill, they complained about red ink: It’s expected to add $3.3 trillion to the national debt over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

  • Wolf@lemmy.today
    5·
    1 hour ago

    Republicans say one thing and do another.

    In other breaking news, fire burns. Film at 11.

  • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    8·
    4 hours ago

    You could have run this headline with a different article for pretty much any couple of months in the past 30 or 40 years, easily.

    Hey, maybe, if journalists would have actually done that… people would still be watching traditional media in large numbers, outside of the retiree demographic!

  • Skyrmir@lemmy.worldEnglish
    16·
    7 hours ago

    They also get caught repeatedly taking credit for Democratic bills they voted against.

  • qarbone@lemmy.worldEnglish
    25·
    8 hours ago

    There needs to be legal and political repercussions for politicians lying or misrepresenting the truth. Doesn’t matter if they didn’t mean to, then they should’ve done better research.

    I imagine things would be better if all that fillibuster time was converted into them carefully choosing what to say.

    • theparadox@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      7 hours ago

      I have shower thoughts like this. Unfortunately, every single one ends with doomerism. Where do we find objective truth? Who determines what is true? I used to think humans were decent and smart enough to figure it out. Republicans have proven that to be nativity.

      • qarbone@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        29 minutes ago

        We don’t have to fall into pits of objective truth. If you say something, be perfectly explicit about what is a factual statement and what is your opinion. If you’re making a factual statement, have a source and make sure the source is credible. Or face penalties when your bunk is debunked.

        Science has already tread the path of “attempting to find truth through the consensus of doubts”. No need to try and trailblaze.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      2·
      6 hours ago

      Doesn’t matter if they didn’t mean to

      Yeah, it does. Social murder should be punished at least as harshly as “regular” murder, but social manslaughter needs to be a lesser category.

      Like maybe an accidental first offense that doesn’t result in any serious harm means you have to pay a fine, second offense/more harmful results in being ineligible for the next election, all the way to things like “Iraq has WMDs so a million people have to die” or “condoms cause AIDS” getting you the guillotine…

      • qarbone@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        27 minutes ago

        No, if you say inflammatory shit that leads to deaths then it doesn’t matter if you didn’t mean to. Politicians should be afraid to speak if their words can kill and disenfranchise.

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    15·
    9 hours ago

    Nowhere has that dynamic been more pronounced than with the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, whose members have repeatedly threatened to oppose bills before acquiescing under pressure from Trump

    Dictatorship? Nah couldn’t be. He’s just dictating what needs to happen and then threatens credible consequences for resisting his will.