Republicans Kill Spending Bill Over Its LGBT Protections

Republicans Kill Spending Bill Over Its LGBT Protections

Ok first off, I'm going to say that I'm blaming both sides of the partisan aisle equally for this latest piece of Congress do-nothingism. The title of the thread just reflects the title of the article. Sorry on that count. First why this is the Republican's fault:

The real surprise was seeing conservatives line up against the bill over an amendment added late Wednesday by Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.). His provision would preserve a 2014 executive order by President Barack Obama that bars federal contractors from discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The House accepted his amendment 223 to 195, with moderate Republicans joining with Democrats to pass it.

So Republicans block their own bill because of their blinded partisan desire to want to discriminate against the LGBT community. Not surprising. Now where I DO plan on surprising the readers is where I blame the Democrats. So here we go.

Nearly every Democrat voted against it, but that was expected. They’d raised concerns with riders in the bill that would undermine the Clean Water Act and allow people to carry firearms on Corps of Engineers lands. They also opposed language added late Wednesday by Republicans that would prevent the federal government from revoking funds to North Carolina over its controversial law affecting transgender people going to the bathroom.

Then this:

“What we learned today is that Democrats were not looking to advance an issue but to sabotage the appropriations process,” he told reporters. “The mere fact that they voted to pass the [Maloney] amendment and then voted against the bill containing their amendment proves this point.”

Good point. Why even put this rider on the bill in the first place if you weren't going to vote for the bill? Looks more suspiciously like a rider purposely designed to kill the bill then blame the other side for not voting for it. Which is exactly what is going on here.

Don't people ever tire of this boring gridlock? Why is compromise considered unamerican these days? Oh well. Just more of the same.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is a difference between discriminating and passing special protections.

Also, I can see them not wanting to memorialize Obama's Executive Orders. In effect they would be encouraging Presidents to legislate (which is NOT their job) and I too am against that on principal.

a reply to: Metallicus

Ok for one, they are just extending rights that racial minorities already have to lgbt people. For two, this has nothing to do with the President or his EO's. This is 100% Congress not doing anything.

And i thought canadian politics where a special kind, man you guys down south have it way worst, hope you guys can one day figure it out.

This kind of grid lock will go on forever.

It’s only going to get worse too.

Both Clinton and Trump will have the most divisive and polarizing impact imaginable.

The Obama years will seem like paradise in comparison to either administration.

a reply to: Willtell

That's probably true. I wonder which would end up being worse...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Metallicus

Ok for one, they are just extending rights that racial minorities already have to lgbt people. For two, this has nothing to do with the President or his EO's. This is 100% Congress not doing anything.

You say this has nothing to do with the President or his EOs?

You wrote this in your OP...

His provision would preserve a 2014 executive order by President Barack Obama that bars federal contractors from discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

So it absolutely DOES have something to do with the misuse of an EO to create policy from a branch of the Government that shouldn't be doing so and has no Constitutional power to make 'laws'.

Finally, there is a difference (in my opinion) between RACE and LGBT rights. One is something you are born in to and the other is a lifestyle .

I have see often enough on here how the left will defend people being persecuted for their religious activities or even use of free speech. I am just saying some will see LGBT in a similar frame.

a reply to: Metallicus
So you are saying that the Republicans aren't at fault here? And this is solely Liberal pandering?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yo it's a feggin SPENDING bill.

That crap doesn't even need to be in to begin with.

Ok for one, they are just extending rights that racial minorities already have to lgbt people. For two, this has nothing to do with the President or his EO's. This is 100% Congress not doing anything.

Because nothing needs to be done.

a reply to: neo96

So Republicans voting down their own bill isn't a problem in your book?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I gave this matter some thought and decided to be an innocent by-stander,
eating popcorn, while waiting for the floor show!

a reply to: mamabeth

It may not be that exciting though if nothing happens... Which is the modus operandi of Congress these days.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I absolutely hate this rider crap. Congress needs to be reigned in by the people, one way to do that is disallow riders... of course we'd have to get Congress to approve...

Republicans Kill Spending Bill Over Its LGBT Protections

So what. Federal government shouldn't interfere with States' rights and the 10th Amendment.

a reply to: Kali74

A star for your post reply and these...

a reply to: Restricted
Another republican defending Congress gridlock...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Restricted
Another republican defending Congress gridlock...

No, not really.

Besides, nothing I think, say, or vote would have the slightest effect on the process anyway.

The citizenry lost control of its government decades ago.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Metallicus

Ok for one, they are just extending rights that racial minorities already have to lgbt people. For two, this has nothing to do with the President or his EO's. This is 100% Congress not doing anything.

Sorry, but singling out groups of people via race or sexual orientation or whatever is not an extension of rights--it's a misuse of legislative powers. These snowflakes are no more special than your average WASP when it comes to getting a job. None of this should matter, it should be all based on qualification, but when the government singles out individuals for protection without making it just a broad statement covering all humans, they empower people to file unnecessary lawsuits, cry foul when no foul may have occurred, and give them a sense of entitlement that need not be there.

I, also, would have voted against this, on that principle alone.

The bigger issue is legislators trying to tack this crap onto bills that have nothing to do with it. It's a trend that is causing the gridlock in Washington. If everything was done individually, there would be a lot less of this and funding would get dealt with in a more efficient manner.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Like I said. I blame the Democrats and Republicans equally for this nonsense. They are both at fault. Dems for attaching the rider, and Repubs for being so ignorant and petty as to withhold government funding over being intolerant.

Back in the days of Reagan, a bill like this would have passed and a rider like that would be considered a compromise agreeable to both partisan parties. Repubs because they got their preferred spending bill and dems because they got their social issue attached to it.

Why any Democrat would think this was a good idea is beyond me. I'm no fan of either party, but the blame gets spread around here.

Why in the world would you ever think it was okay to pass multiple pieces of legislation as one piece? Vote on every separate bill as its own bill, get rid of these stupid riders, and then we'll have an even better voting record.

As it stands, we have no clue why someone voted one way or the other. Which part of this crap were they for or against?