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.

  • qarbone@lemmy.worldEnglish
    27·
    15 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
      7·
      5 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 naivete.

      • qarbone@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        7 hours 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.

        • theparadox@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          4 hours 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.

          All three branches of the US government have been captured by people for whom truth is literally whatever they need it to be in the moment. Thinktanks can vomit up bullshit research to support whatever is necessary, at least delaying resolution and casting doubt on even the most credible, well sourced facts. The media is spineless or complicit.

          Or face penalties when your bunk is debunked.

          Fucking lol. When you make the laws, control the courts, and have the resources for multi-billion dollar lawsuits debunking is going to take a while, if it ever happens. We’ll see if even the Epstein files get swept under the rug like everything else so far.

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

          Ah yes, science has managed to blaze a trail right through the bullshit and convinced the the US that we really need to counteract or at least prepare for climate change, right? We’re doing… something… right? We’re not just hitting the gas for short term profits, right? Right?

          There is a very real danger of having “lies” be a convenient, established tool to eliminate political opponents. Admittedly, these fucking fascists are perfectly willing to blaze their own authoritarian trail, regardless of precedent, and just find some bullshit reason to revoke your citizenship and ship you off to some gulag without due process. 'murica.

          Those with power are only looking to make their own truth. Thinktank research. Controlling the news media. Controlling social media. Hell, even trying to dictate reality via prompt engineering and then purposely reducing the quality of search results to encourage people to rely on biased chatbots.

          The fascists understand how to poison the well. They understand how to play the system. They know they can manipulate their base. They know they can manipulate their opponents by appealing to their better nature then taking advantage of any good faith granted by them.

          The US is different now. It’s fucked up beyond anything I could have imagined even a year ago. I don’t think standing up for truth and bringing credible sources means anything anymore.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      4·
      12 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·
        7 hours 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.