https://www.chron.com/politics/article/T...348029.php

Ted Cruz folds, votes in favor of PACT Act following pressure from Jon Stewart

If you read the story, you'll see that the vote went from 42-55 to 86-11... You'll also see that:
Last week, 25 Senate Republicans, including Cruz, blocked the PACT Act despite many of them previously voting in June to advance it, with each justifying the flip by claiming that Democrats recently inserted a provision reclassifying $400 billion in spending from discretionary to mandatory. Republicans argued this could create spending on unrelated matters.

and also...
In a statement Tuesday applauding the bill's passage, Cruz said he was proud to support veterans but was "disappointed that we couldn't come together to fix the Democrat-created budget gimmick that will allow Congress to subsequently spend another $400 billion in pork, on top of and completely unrelated to the laudable funding in this bill for veterans harmed by burn pits."

"Now it's up to Republicans to clean up this mess," Cruz said, "by lowering the discretionary cap—so that we protect every penny of veterans funding but prevent unrelated pork—when Republicans retake the majority."

Now, those are all valid debatable points. Many Republicans supported this bill and then turned against a new addition... and then it seems they ultimately decided to make it a campaign issue... without denying benefits to Veterans, which of course would have been a campaign issue against them.

And the media credits John Stewart?? But not the veterans who were also there protesting?? Also, the best way to get someone to say 'eff you' and dig their heels in harder is to gloat when you think you've beaten them.

Now regardless of whether or not you support this bill, it certainly seems that arguing about 'pork' is something we all agree is okay. We disagree on what constitutes pork, but we all hate it.... But the problem is, we've turned being a rabble rouser into a multi-million dollar career. See that other guy as well... the conservative who looks like Wally Cleaver... can't remember his name but I know all the leftists know him... he does lots of college debates/forums and the far right LOVES him.

These guys make millions in the fight... and yes.. the fight has merit... but here we are in the news CELEBRATING the fight.

I was at the gym yesterday and there were 7 TVs on... EVERY SINGLE CNN headline for at least 15 minutes was 'Trump backed candidate losing'. 'Trump supporting candidate claims victory before the race is called (as if that's a big problem)'. 'Driver who voted for Trump in 2016 arrested for speeding'. It's ALL ABOUT the fight.

(08-04-2022 02:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  https://www.chron.com/politics/article/T...348029.php

Ted Cruz folds, votes in favor of PACT Act following pressure from Jon Stewart

If you read the story, you'll see that the vote went from 42-55 to 86-11... You'll also see that:
Last week, 25 Senate Republicans, including Cruz, blocked the PACT Act despite many of them previously voting in June to advance it, with each justifying the flip by claiming that Democrats recently inserted a provision reclassifying $400 billion in spending from discretionary to mandatory. Republicans argued this could create spending on unrelated matters.

and also...
In a statement Tuesday applauding the bill's passage, Cruz said he was proud to support veterans but was "disappointed that we couldn't come together to fix the Democrat-created budget gimmick that will allow Congress to subsequently spend another $400 billion in pork, on top of and completely unrelated to the laudable funding in this bill for veterans harmed by burn pits."

"Now it's up to Republicans to clean up this mess," Cruz said, "by lowering the discretionary cap—so that we protect every penny of veterans funding but prevent unrelated pork—when Republicans retake the majority."

Now, those are all valid debatable points. Many Republicans supported this bill and then turned against a new addition... and then it seems they ultimately decided to make it a campaign issue... without denying benefits to Veterans, which of course would have been a campaign issue against them.

And the media credits John Stewart?? But not the veterans who were also there protesting?? Also, the best way to get someone to say 'eff you' and dig their heels in harder is to gloat when you think you've beaten them.

Now regardless of whether or not you support this bill, it certainly seems that arguing about 'pork' is something we all agree is okay. We disagree on what constitutes pork, but we all hate it.... But the problem is, we've turned being a rabble rouser into a multi-million dollar career. See that other guy as well... the conservative who looks like Wally Cleaver... can't remember his name but I know all the leftists know him... he does lots of college debates/forums and the far right LOVES him.

These guys make millions in the fight... and yes.. the fight has merit... but here we are in the news CELEBRATING the fight.

I was at the gym yesterday and there were 7 TVs on... EVERY SINGLE CNN headline for at least 15 minutes was 'Trump backed candidate losing'. 'Trump supporting candidate claims victory before the race is called (as if that's a big problem)'. 'Driver who voted for Trump in 2016 arrested for speeding'. It's ALL ABOUT the fight.

Take a look in the Kyra Memorial pigpen.

When one doesnt agree in lockstep with the right leaning rabble there --- "damn liberal".

Apparently I am that forum's "damn progressive" now. Or, get a load of GO here for that matter.

But, it very much highlights Ham's point above.

(08-04-2022 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Take a look in the Kyra Memorial pigpen.

When one doesnt agree in lockstep with the right leaning rabble there --- "damn liberal".

Apparently I am that forum's "damn progressive" now. Or, get a load of GO here for that matter.

But, it very much highlights Ham's point above.

Yes... I'm a mod there unfortunately as well... and when I post, I'm a progressive ne'er do well. It's not good enough that I agree with a lot of what they want... I have to agree with how they want to say it or do it.

(08-04-2022 02:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  https://www.chron.com/politics/article/T...348029.php

Ted Cruz folds, votes in favor of PACT Act following pressure from Jon Stewart

If you read the story, you'll see that the vote went from 42-55 to 86-11... You'll also see that:
Last week, 25 Senate Republicans, including Cruz, blocked the PACT Act despite many of them previously voting in June to advance it, with each justifying the flip by claiming that Democrats recently inserted a provision reclassifying $400 billion in spending from discretionary to mandatory. Republicans argued this could create spending on unrelated matters.

and also...
In a statement Tuesday applauding the bill's passage, Cruz said he was proud to support veterans but was "disappointed that we couldn't come together to fix the Democrat-created budget gimmick that will allow Congress to subsequently spend another $400 billion in pork, on top of and completely unrelated to the laudable funding in this bill for veterans harmed by burn pits."

"Now it's up to Republicans to clean up this mess," Cruz said, "by lowering the discretionary cap—so that we protect every penny of veterans funding but prevent unrelated pork—when Republicans retake the majority."

Now, those are all valid debatable points. Many Republicans supported this bill and then turned against a new addition... and then it seems they ultimately decided to make it a campaign issue... without denying benefits to Veterans, which of course would have been a campaign issue against them.

And the media credits John Stewart?? But not the veterans who were also there protesting?? Also, the best way to get someone to say 'eff you' and dig their heels in harder is to gloat when you think you've beaten them.

Now regardless of whether or not you support this bill, it certainly seems that arguing about 'pork' is something we all agree is okay. We disagree on what constitutes pork, but we all hate it.... But the problem is, we've turned being a rabble rouser into a multi-million dollar career. See that other guy as well... the conservative who looks like Wally Cleaver... can't remember his name but I know all the leftists know him... he does lots of college debates/forums and the far right LOVES him.

These guys make millions in the fight... and yes.. the fight has merit... but here we are in the news CELEBRATING the fight.

I was at the gym yesterday and there were 7 TVs on... EVERY SINGLE CNN headline for at least 15 minutes was 'Trump backed candidate losing'. 'Trump supporting candidate claims victory before the race is called (as if that's a big problem)'. 'Driver who voted for Trump in 2016 arrested for speeding'. It's ALL ABOUT the fight.

I'll note that Jon Stewart is getting a lot of attention because he has been, for quite some time now, advocating very publicly for veterans and first responders. And the advocacy is often on The Hill itself. He was a force in getting the 9/11 first responders fund (I forget its name) refunded. And he's worked similarly for these burn pit funds.

Stewart was being highlighted in Jan 2022 for his work advocating for this legislation (if not earlier): https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19...ans-527420

(08-05-2022 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'll note that Jon Stewart is getting a lot of attention because he has been, for quite some time now, advocating very publicly for veterans and first responders. And the advocacy is often on The Hill itself. He was a force in getting the 9/11 first responders fund (I forget its name) refunded. And he's worked similarly for these burn pit funds.

Stewart was being highlighted in Jan 2022 for his work advocating for this legislation (if not earlier): https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19...ans-527420

But that's not the point, Lad...

The point is that the article suggests that Cruz 'folded' under his pressure.

1) I know people who have been advocating for veterans far longer than Jon Stewart... but they didn't have their own comedy show.

2) I suspect the change had more to do with Veterans (who were there protesting as well) than Jon Stewart...

and mostly

by creating an environment where Jon Stewart is not only credited with making a Senator 'fold under pressure' (which by any reasonable view, since he voted for it initially... balked at it a second time and then voted for it in the final... suggesting that 'fixing it' become a campaign event) that there was much more to it than 'the power' of a guy with a platform. I'm not trying to deride Jon Stewart... He can be lauded for his use of his public platform to advance Veterans issues without suggesting that someone 'folded under his pressure'.

To me, such things would
a) cause people on some level to not want to be seen as 'folding under pressure' from especially a comic, which would be vastly less meaningful than even 'folding under pressure' from veterans.... but even that has issues for me as it might harden them more in their positions, which divides us...
b) create an environment where people think they can become famous (and perhaps wealthy) for protesting... which is part of what leads to some of the outrageous behavior that we see at many protests... or in grocery stores or restaurants or all sorts of places where people 'think' they're doing a public service.

Whether you believe or agree with him or not on his reasoning... There are MULTIPLE times where Congressmen vote for or against things as much as for the symbolism of them as the actual outcome. I mean, we usually know about what the count is going to be before the vote... and who the 'hold out targets' are... so what is the point in being one of the 14 in an 86-14 vote if not symbolism? Do we think those people, likely Republicans want to be seen as 'against veterans'?? Of course not.

I mean seriously... The bill that Cruz voted down after voting 'for' the first one, according to Stewart was 'exactly the same' as the one that was passed....

So why did we go from 42 yesses to 86?? Not even all the democrats were on board with the previous one. Obviously SOMETHING material changed.... and with all due respect, I don't think it was because Jon Stewart was outside protesting.

Even if it was (and we all know it wasn't)... why are we singling out Cruz's vote among the 44 new votes? Clearly because many see him as a potential Presidential candidate... and want to hit him early. I get why democrats would promote that... but I don't get why 'the news' would.

(08-05-2022 10:30 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'll note that Jon Stewart is getting a lot of attention because he has been, for quite some time now, advocating very publicly for veterans and first responders. And the advocacy is often on The Hill itself. He was a force in getting the 9/11 first responders fund (I forget its name) refunded. And he's worked similarly for these burn pit funds.

Stewart was being highlighted in Jan 2022 for his work advocating for this legislation (if not earlier): https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19...ans-527420

But that's not the point, Lad...

The point is that the article suggests that Cruz 'folded' under his pressure.

1) I know people who have been advocating for veterans far longer than Jon Stewart... but they didn't have their own comedy show.

2) I suspect the change had more to do with Veterans (who were there protesting as well) than Jon Stewart...

and mostly

by creating an environment where Jon Stewart is not only credited with making a Senator 'fold under pressure' (which by any reasonable view, since he voted for it initially... balked at it a second time and then voted for it in the final... suggesting that 'fixing it' become a campaign event) that there was much more to it than 'the power' of a guy with a platform. I'm not trying to deride Jon Stewart... He can be lauded for his use of his public platform to advance Veterans issues without suggesting that someone 'folded under his pressure'.

To me, such things would
a) cause people on some level to not want to be seen as 'folding under pressure' from especially a comic, which would be vastly less meaningful than even 'folding under pressure' from veterans.... but even that has issues for me as it might harden them more in their positions, which divides us...
b) create an environment where people think they can become famous (and perhaps wealthy) for protesting... which is part of what leads to some of the outrageous behavior that we see at many protests... or in grocery stores or restaurants or all sorts of places where people 'think' they're doing a public service.

Whether you believe or agree with him or not on his reasoning... There are MULTIPLE times where Congressmen vote for or against things as much as for the symbolism of them as the actual outcome. I mean, we usually know about what the count is going to be before the vote... and who the 'hold out targets' are... so what is the point in being one of the 14 in an 86-14 vote if not symbolism? Do we think those people, likely Republicans want to be seen as 'against veterans'?? Of course not.

I mean seriously... The bill that Cruz voted down after voting 'for' the first one, according to Stewart was 'exactly the same' as the one that was passed....

So why did we go from 42 yesses to 86?? Not even all the democrats were on board with the previous one. Obviously SOMETHING material changed.... and with all due respect, I don't think it was because Jon Stewart was outside protesting.

Even if it was (and we all know it wasn't)... why are we singling out Cruz's vote among the 44 new votes? Clearly because many see him as a potential Presidential candidate... and want to hit him early. I get why democrats would promote that... but I don't get why 'the news' would.

You asked why Jon Stewart was getting press. I provided you the answer as to why Jon Stewart was getting press...

"And the media credits John Stewart?? But not the veterans who were also there protesting??"

I was making a clear and pointed comment about Jon Stewart and his role, and nothing else. I started it with "I'll note" and literally posted nothing else about anything else written.

Not to draw further ire from you... I am only responding to this question you have posed and nothing more. Please don't take this in any other way. "So why did we go from 42 yesses to 86??"

PACT Act passed with a final vote of 86-11. It originally was passed with an 84-14 margin, and when it went to the House there was a tweak to the language that raised a constitutional concern (the concern was that a tweak in the Senate made it a tax measure, and all tax measures must originate in the House). It passed the House 342-88 without the tax provision. When it came back to the Senate, it failed to get 60 votes, with a 55-42 vote. We went from 84 yes' to 55 yes' - so a delta of 29 (not 44). Of the 42 senators who voted against the revision, 41 were Republican. Schumer was the only Dem to vote against it, while 2 Dems abstained. Schumer voted no specifically to allow him to reconsider the cloture vote at any time (not because he disagreed with the bill).

My understanding is that the tweak in the House had nothing to do with the funding mechanism that Republicans who changed their vote pointed to as an explanation for the no vote. That the funding mechanism between Senate votes 1 and 2 was completely unchanged. Why did these Senators change their vote when there was no change to the part of the bill they referenced? No idea.

(08-05-2022 11:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You asked why Jon Stewart was getting press. I provided you the answer as to why Jon Stewart was getting press...

"And the media credits John Stewart?? But not the veterans who were also there protesting??"

I was making a clear and pointed comment about Jon Stewart and his role, and nothing else. I started it with "I'll note" and literally posted nothing else about anything else written.

Let me start with this. I am using this to demonstrate why we are divided. I am not using it as you suggest to say that Jon Stewart is not a longtime supporter of veterans and their issues. To respond to my post by answering one relatively small question in it ignores the whole theme of the post. Hence you missed the point.

Second, I asked why they were crediting him with changing Cruz's vote. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that Jon Stewart had the slightest influence on his vote.

Quote:Not to draw further ire from you... I am only responding to this question you have posed and nothing more. Please don't take this in any other way. "So why did we go from 42 yesses to 86??"

Then you're not responding to my post, but merely a selective and relatively meaningless part.

Quote:PACT Act passed with a final vote of 86-11. It originally was passed with an 84-14 margin, and when it went to the House there was a tweak to the language that raised a constitutional concern (the concern was that a tweak in the Senate made it a tax measure, and all tax measures must originate in the House). It passed the House 342-88 without the tax provision. When it came back to the Senate, it failed to get 60 votes, with a 55-42 vote. We went from 84 yes' to 55 yes' - so a delta of 29 (not 44). Of the 42 senators who voted against the revision, 41 were Republican. Schumer was the only Dem to vote against it, while 2 Dems abstained. Schumer voted no specifically to allow him to reconsider the cloture vote at any time (not because he disagreed with the bill).

Mea culpa for reading the article and expecting that it would present the facts. Only another reason to be distrustful... as they spent more time applauding Jon Stewart for changing Cruz's mind (and apparently 28 others, but none of them were mentioned) than in presenting the real story

Quote:My understanding is that the tweak in the House had nothing to do with the funding mechanism that Republicans who changed their vote pointed to as an explanation for the no vote. That the funding mechanism between Senate votes 1 and 2 was completely unchanged. Why did these Senators change their vote when there was no change to the part of the bill they referenced? No idea.

According to the article, Cruz was one of 25 Republicans who changed their votes... which even using your numbers, means 4 Democrats changed their minds as well.... not 1. But even if is was only one Democrat... Something doesn't add up in the facts.... and SOMETHING changed that Democrats mind.... even though his vote was ultimately meaningless since we were well over 60 without them

Your understanding of the tweak does not make it so... I also note that you give Schumer an out, but deny Republicans the out they've articulated, based on your understanding.... and even change it completely. Maybe they voted 'no' simply to give themselves more time to tweak the bill?

According to the article, it wasn't the funding mechanism but instead the reclassification of spending from discretionary to mandatory. To most people, that's the biggest problem in Congress is mandatory spending. If you don't spend it this year, you lose it for next... and you never know what you might need it for so you often waste it this year even if you don't need it.

So your understanding and the article are at direct odds. You think the tweak was the funding mechanism and Cruz is saying its the spending verbiage. If they are wrong, it is STILL evidence that the press is creating tension where it doesn't necessarily exist, and crediting a media personality for changing 1/29th of the vote? Who changed the minds of the other 28?

You don't vote against veterans as a Republican 'for show'. Obviously they wanted something changed. Either they got it, or they didn't get it but want to use it as a campaign tool, just as Democrats here (including the press) do or WOULD have. It MAY have been that simple.

So again... based on what specific evidence are we crediting Jon Stewart for changing Ted Cruz's mind in this specific instance? Your response that he's long been an advocate and protestor for veterans rights doesn't answer that question.

(08-05-2022 12:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 11:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You asked why Jon Stewart was getting press. I provided you the answer as to why Jon Stewart was getting press...

"And the media credits John Stewart?? But not the veterans who were also there protesting??"

I was making a clear and pointed comment about Jon Stewart and his role, and nothing else. I started it with "I'll note" and literally posted nothing else about anything else written.

Let me start with this. I am using this to demonstrate why we are divided. I am not using it as you suggest to say that Jon Stewart is not a longtime supporter of veterans and their issues. To respond to my post by answering one relatively small question in it ignores the whole theme of the post. Hence you missed the point.

Second, I asked why they were crediting him with changing Cruz's vote. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that Jon Stewart had the slightest influence on his vote.

Quote:Not to draw further ire from you... I am only responding to this question you have posed and nothing more. Please don't take this in any other way. "So why did we go from 42 yesses to 86??"

Then you're not responding to my post, but merely a selective and relatively meaningless part.

Quote:PACT Act passed with a final vote of 86-11. It originally was passed with an 84-14 margin, and when it went to the House there was a tweak to the language that raised a constitutional concern (the concern was that a tweak in the Senate made it a tax measure, and all tax measures must originate in the House). It passed the House 342-88 without the tax provision. When it came back to the Senate, it failed to get 60 votes, with a 55-42 vote. We went from 84 yes' to 55 yes' - so a delta of 29 (not 44). Of the 42 senators who voted against the revision, 41 were Republican. Schumer was the only Dem to vote against it, while 2 Dems abstained. Schumer voted no specifically to allow him to reconsider the cloture vote at any time (not because he disagreed with the bill).

Mea culpa for reading the article and expecting that it would present the facts. Only another reason to be distrustful... as they spent more time applauding Jon Stewart for changing Cruz's mind (and apparently 28 others, but none of them were mentioned) than in presenting the real story

Quote:My understanding is that the tweak in the House had nothing to do with the funding mechanism that Republicans who changed their vote pointed to as an explanation for the no vote. That the funding mechanism between Senate votes 1 and 2 was completely unchanged. Why did these Senators change their vote when there was no change to the part of the bill they referenced? No idea.

According to the article, Cruz was one of 25 Republicans who changed their votes... which even using your numbers, means 4 Democrats changed their minds as well.... not 1. But even if is was only one Democrat... Something doesn't add up in the facts.... and SOMETHING changed that Democrats mind.... even though his vote was ultimately meaningless since we were well over 60 without them

Your understanding of the tweak does not make it so... I also note that you give Schumer an out, but deny Republicans the out they've articulated, based on your understanding.... and even change it completely.

According to the article, it wasn't the funding mechanism but instead the reclassification of spending from discretionary to mandatory. To most people, that's the biggest problem in Congress is mandatory spending. If you don't spend it this year, you lose it for next... and you never know what you might need it for so you often waste it this year even if you don't need it.

So your understanding and the article are at direct odds. You think the tweak was the funding mechanism and Cruz is saying its the spending verbiage. If they are wrong, it is STILL evidence that the press is creating tension where it doesn't necessarily exist, and crediting a media personality for changing 1/29th of the vote? Who changed the minds of the other 28?

You don't vote against veterans as a Republican 'for show'. Obviously they wanted something changed. Either they got it, or they didn't get it but want to use it as a campaign tool, just as Democrats here (including the press) do or WOULD have. It MAY have been that simple.

So again... based on what specific evidence are we crediting Jon Stewart for changing Ted Cruz's mind in this specific instance? Your response that he's long been an advocate and protestor for veterans rights doesn't answer that question.

I have no problem if you think I am responding to meaningless portions of your post - I've got 0 issue with your perspective being that. I was responding to a part of your post that I wanted to, where I felt that some added information might be beneficial.

Based on your response here, you seem to believe I am trying to challenge an assertion of yours when I respond to you, as opposed to adding information about an issue you have asked questions about.

Note the following language you use:

"I am not using it as you suggest to say that Jon Stewart is not a longtime supporter of veterans and their issues."
(I never said you thought or were arguing Stewart wasn't a longtime supporter of these issues. At worst I wasn't sure if you were aware, since you had asked a question as to why Stewart was getting credit. The worst case scenario isn't combative at all.)

"Your understanding of the tweak does not make it so... I also note that you give Schumer an out, but deny Republicans the out they've articulated, based on your understanding.... and even change it completely."
(I literally posted a summary from an article I read that explained why Schumer voted the way he did, but you accuse me of giving Schumer an out and denying Republicans an out).

If anyone wants to read more on the PACT Act and the changes. I don't have a Chron account so I can't read the article Ham posted (part of the reason I wasn't commenting on the larger point Ham was making).

Quote:The bill initially passed the 100-member Senate with the support of 34 Republicans and all 50 Democrats, but got held up by a technical error the House swiftly corrected.

The Senate's final approval last week was expected to be a routine vote, but after Democrats announced a deal within their caucus on an unrelated climate and tax bill that would not require bipartisan support, a group of Republican senators abruptly changed their positions and voted against the corrected bill.

Many saw the Republican senators' move, which took place just hours after the Democrats' announcement, as retribution for continuing negotiations on the climate and tax bill that most in Congress thought were dead.

On Tuesday, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer said he had reached a deal with Republican Senator Pat Toomey to hold a vote on an amendment that would change how money was allocated within the burn pits bill, clearing the way for a final vote on passage on Tuesday evening.

Toomey's amendment was defeated before the Senate approved the legislation by a vote of 86-11.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-sena...022-08-02/

Quote:However, one of Stewart's central claims was that the bill has "not had had one word added to it."

This is true. Between the bill originally passed by the Senate in June (see here) and the version rejected in July (see here) only minor changes can be found, which do not appear to alter the substance of the bill, including funding.
A section on non-taxable benefits was cut but nothing was added to it.

A side-by-side comparison of the two versions of the bill show only a few alterations and none that change its scope.

Cruz suggested that a change was made to previous versions of the bill amounting to a "budgetary trick," whereby the spending was changed from discretionary to mandatory, a claim that may have some merit.
The mandatory spending agreements were the same and nothing else meaningful was altered.

This "budgetary trick" wasn't addressed in the Senate when the bill first passed in June.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) has suggested an amendment to the bill that would cap the amount of mandatory spending available per year.

The amendment states: "Any amounts appropriated to the Fund for a fiscal year in excess of the amount specified under subsection ©(2) for that fiscal year shall be scored as discretionary budget authority and outlays for any estimate of an appropriations Act."

In a statement, Toomey said: "The PACT Act as written includes a budget gimmick that would allow $400 billion of current law spending to be moved from the discretionary to the mandatory spending category. This provision is completely unnecessary to achieve the PACT Act's stated goal of expanding health care and other benefits for veterans."

While the bill was eventually passed by the Senate on August 2, Stewart was right in that "not one word" was added between the votes in June and July 2022.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-jon-...es-1730175

(08-05-2022 12:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I have no problem if you think I am responding to meaningless portions of your post - I've got 0 issue with your perspective being that. I was responding to a part of your post that I wanted to, where I felt that some added information might be beneficial.

That information was in the article... and of course I've known of Jon Stewart's actions regarding veterans for a long time. I understand that you didn't necessarily know that I knew.

What I DON'T see is what I asked...

Why are we crediting Jon Stewart for changing Cruz's mind? The answer that he's long been an advocate for veterans isn't responsive to that question.

Quote:Based on your response here, you seem to believe I am trying to challenge an assertion of yours when I respond to you, as opposed to adding information about an issue you have asked questions about.

Not at all. It's just not responsive to my question. It's responsive to the rephrasing you gave my words... why Jon Stewart is getting press... I didn't ask why he was getting press. I asked why he personally was being singled out and CREDITED for 'making Cruz fold'.

Quote:Note the following language you use:

"I am not using it as you suggest to say that Jon Stewart is not a longtime supporter of veterans and their issues."
(I never said you thought or were arguing Stewart wasn't a longtime supporter of these issues. At worst I wasn't sure if you were aware, since you had asked a question as to why Stewart was getting credit. The worst case scenario isn't combative at all.)

It's in the article I linked so I assumed you'd know I'd at least read it... but no worries....

Noting that he was there as part of/leading a group of protesters would STILL give him press. It still doesn't explain how IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE, his presence and actions made such a dramatic change in the outcome.

As to the wording you quote... While I understand that it may be a bit clumsy, You misrepresent and/or misunderstand what I said by leaving off what precedes it. Immediately before what you quote, I said.... I am using it to demonstrate how it divides us... The part you quote is the counter to that.... I am not using it to suggest that Stewart isn't a great advocate for veterans, which is essentially what you say. That doesn't mean that I think ANYTHING about what you said... I am telling you that I'm not arguing against what you said... that he's a great advocate. I am not claiming that he is NOT a great advocate for veterans. I am using the comment to demonstrate how 'what they're doing' with how they report it (not what Stewart is doing) divides us.

Quote:"Your understanding of the tweak does not make it so... I also note that you give Schumer an out, but deny Republicans the out they've articulated, based on your understanding.... and even change it completely."
(I literally posted a summary from an article I read that explained why Schumer voted the way he did, but you accuse me of giving Schumer an out and denying Republicans an out).

Yes... because I literally posted the entire article that quotes why Cruz voted the way he did... and you essentially respond by saying that 'your understanding' is that Cruz isn't telling the truth. So yes, you accept what Schumer says at face value, and dismiss and even CHANGE what Cruz said... from a 'spending' issue which is what he said, to a 'funding' issue which is what you understand.

Thank you for so clearly spelling out my point.

As to why you and I are so divided, that's an entirely different story.... but I think the fact that you can't even remotely see my point here... even your dismissal of Cruz's explanation but acceptance of Schumer's says a lot about it to me.

Your story about Schumer makes some sense... he had a technical reason for voting no. From a numbers standpoint in order to make the stories jive (where 25 republicans changed their votes but 29 votes were changed) The 4 changes might have been Schumer, the two abstentions and then Bernie? Is there another independent? Why did THEY change their minds? Likely because they didn't ultimately want to be seen as voting against veterans, but they STILL had issues with the amended bill from the House. Maybe like Schumer, they had a technical reason (like putting the bill through reconciliation or something, but not really being against the act itself) and ultimately they decided it wasn't worth it, or that they could make more hay by making it a campaign issue against inflation/pork barrel legislation.... which is PRECISLEY what Cruz said it was.

Are you following?

It's not about Jon Stewart. It's about the press claiming that he personally was the reason that Ted Cruz changed his vote. That's NOT what Cruz said...

It would be like the same article saying that he was responsible for changing Schumer's vote. The only difference is, you believe Schumer's excuse, but not Cruz's.... in part it seems because you've been told he voted against it for a reason other than the reason he gave. If I did the same for Schumer, I could write this same article and be just as 'right' (or wrong)

(08-05-2022 01:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 12:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I have no problem if you think I am responding to meaningless portions of your post - I've got 0 issue with your perspective being that. I was responding to a part of your post that I wanted to, where I felt that some added information might be beneficial.

That information was in the article... and of course I've known of Jon Stewart's actions regarding veterans for a long time. I understand that you didn't necessarily know that I knew.

What I DON'T see is what I asked...

Why are we crediting Jon Stewart for changing Cruz's mind? The answer that he's long been an advocate for veterans isn't responsive to that question.

Quote:Based on your response here, you seem to believe I am trying to challenge an assertion of yours when I respond to you, as opposed to adding information about an issue you have asked questions about.

Not at all. It's just not responsive to my question. It's responsive to the rephrasing you gave my words... why Jon Stewart is getting press... I didn't ask why he was getting press. I asked why he personally was being singled out and CREDITED for 'making Cruz fold'.

Quote:Note the following language you use:

"I am not using it as you suggest to say that Jon Stewart is not a longtime supporter of veterans and their issues."
(I never said you thought or were arguing Stewart wasn't a longtime supporter of these issues. At worst I wasn't sure if you were aware, since you had asked a question as to why Stewart was getting credit. The worst case scenario isn't combative at all.)

It's in the article I linked so I assumed you'd know I'd at least read it... but no worries....

Noting that he was there as part of/leading a group of protesters would STILL give him press. It still doesn't explain how IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE, his presence and actions made such a dramatic change in the outcome.

As to the wording you quote... While I understand that it may be a bit clumsy, You misrepresent and/or misunderstand what I said by leaving off what precedes it. Immediately before what you quote, I said.... I am using it to demonstrate how it divides us... The part you quote is the counter to that.... I am not using it to suggest that Stewart isn't a great advocate for veterans, which is essentially what you say. That doesn't mean that I think ANYTHING about what you said... I am telling you that I'm not arguing against what you said... that he's a great advocate. I am not claiming that he is NOT a great advocate for veterans. I am using the comment to demonstrate how 'what they're doing' with how they report it (not what Stewart is doing) divides us.

Quote:"Your understanding of the tweak does not make it so... I also note that you give Schumer an out, but deny Republicans the out they've articulated, based on your understanding.... and even change it completely."
(I literally posted a summary from an article I read that explained why Schumer voted the way he did, but you accuse me of giving Schumer an out and denying Republicans an out).

Yes... because I literally posted the entire article that quotes why Cruz voted the way he did... and you essentially respond by saying that 'your understanding' is that Cruz isn't telling the truth. So yes, you accept what Schumer says at face value, and dismiss and even CHANGE what Cruz said... from a 'spending' issue which is what he said, to a 'funding' issue which is what you understand.

Thank you for so clearly spelling out my point.

As to why you and I are so divided, that's an entirely different story.... but I think the fact that you can't even remotely see my point here... even your dismissal of Cruz's explanation but acceptance of Schumer's says a lot about it to me.

Your story about Schumer makes some sense... he had a technical reason for voting no. From a numbers standpoint in order to make the stories jive (where 25 republicans changed their votes but 29 votes were changed) The 4 changes might have been Schumer, the two abstentions and then Bernie? Is there another independent? Why did THEY change their minds? Likely because they didn't ultimately want to be seen as voting against veterans, but they STILL had issues with the amended bill from the House. Maybe like Schumer, they had a technical reason (like putting the bill through reconciliation or something, but not really being against the act itself) and ultimately they decided it wasn't worth it, or that they could make more hay by making it a campaign issue against inflation/pork barrel legislation.... which is PRECISLEY what Cruz said it was.

Are you following?

It's not about Jon Stewart. It's about the press claiming that he personally was the reason that Ted Cruz changed his vote. That's NOT what Cruz said...

It would be like the same article saying that he was responsible for changing Schumer's vote. The only difference is, you believe Schumer's excuse, but not Cruz's.... in part it seems because you've been told he voted against it for a reason other than the reason he gave. If I did the same for Schumer, I could write this same article and be just as 'right' (or wrong)

Seriously, buzz off with the bolded. It has nothing to do with not seeing your point - I posted what I wanted to post and that was all I wanted to post about.

Don't take my desire to talk about what I want to, as any indication of a supposed lack of comprehension of your point. I added an aside, which I didn't think was controversial, and here we are - you telling me what I don't understand and what I am misrepresenting.

I ******* get that you're providing a commentary about the press, it's clear as ******* day. I didn't care to get into that conversation and wanted to add an aside about Stewart and then the PACT Act voting process itself.

This is a much better but still misleading article and presents most of my argument... I am editing it to show what I mean...

Quote:The Senate's final approval last week was expected to be a routine vote, but after Democrats announced a deal within their caucus on an unrelated climate and tax bill that would not require bipartisan support, a group of Republican senators abruptly changed their positions and voted against the corrected bill.

Many saw the Republican senators' move, which took place just hours after the Democrats' announcement, as retribution for continuing negotiations on the climate and tax bill that most in Congress thought were dead.

So this is one possible reason for the change having nothing to do with Jon Stewart or Cruz 'folding' to pressure.

Quote:On Tuesday, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer said he had reached a deal with Republican Senator Pat Toomey to hold a vote on an amendment that would change how money was allocated within the burn pits bill, clearing the way for a final vote on passage on Tuesday evening.

Toomey's amendment was defeated before the Senate approved the legislation by a vote of 86-11.

So apparently they tried to get something changed in the bill and it was voted down... but obviously they voted 'no' in order to try and get that change made. When the vote failed, they ultimately signed off once again on the deal.

How is that not essentially the same thing as why Schumer voted no? You vote no to allow for another discussion on a specific portion.... even though you clearly support the bill.... voting for it twice.

Quote:However, one of Stewart's central claims was that the bill has "not had had one word added to it."

This is true. Between the bill originally passed by the Senate in June (see here) and the version rejected in July (see here) only minor changes can be found, which do not appear to alter the substance of the bill, including funding.
A section on non-taxable benefits was cut but nothing was added to it.

A side-by-side comparison of the two versions of the bill show only a few alterations and none that change its scope.

Okay... now they're getting a bit on the edge... "not one word is changed' and 'not changing the scope' are not the same thing. In fact even if only minor changes can be found (like changing discretionary to mandatory), that by definition is 'one word'. So you can't say 'not one word was changed' and then note that there were 'minor changes' and 'a few alterations'.

While they don't admit to doing this above, at least they say this bolded below....

Quote:Cruz suggested that a change was made to previous versions of the bill amounting to a "budgetary trick," whereby the spending was changed from discretionary to mandatory, a claim that may have some merit.
The mandatory spending agreements were the same and nothing else meaningful was altered.

This "budgetary trick" wasn't addressed in the Senate when the bill first passed in June.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) has suggested an amendment to the bill that would cap the amount of mandatory spending available per year.

The amendment states: "Any amounts appropriated to the Fund for a fiscal year in excess of the amount specified under subsection ©(2) for that fiscal year shall be scored as discretionary budget authority and outlays for any estimate of an appropriations Act."

In a statement, Toomey said: "The PACT Act as written includes a budget gimmick that would allow $400 billion of current law spending to be moved from the discretionary to the mandatory spending category. This provision is completely unnecessary to achieve the PACT Act's stated goal of expanding health care and other benefits for veterans."

While the bill was eventually passed by the Senate on August 2, Stewart was right in that "not one word" was added between the votes in June and July 2022.

Okay, now THIS is where I have fault with the article... ANY changes in the bill which they have already described as 'alterations', minor changes and 'not changing the scope'... HOW would a bill accomplish that and not change 'one word'??

That's a lie... and they determined that it was true.

EFFECTIVELY true is their opinion... that the changes were immaterial... but that is a subjective view. I promise you that not one attorney nor accountant would say that the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending is 'minor' or 'immaterial'. To me, mortgages and car notes and insurance and basic food are mandatory expenses. Shoes and clothes are not, though I'm sure my GF would argue that making them so would be a minor, immaterial alteration that doesn't change the scope of our budgets.

So if the claim that it was changed to mandatory from discretionary has some merit... Then AT LEAST one (meaningful) word was changed... and I could certainly see a party procedurally changing their votes (it seems in this instance) to at least try and cap the spending... and when that failed, they signed off on it and will try and make it a campaign issue...

So I'm back to my same question....

Why did the chronicle credit Stewart for making Cruz 'fold'??

(08-05-2022 01:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 01:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As to why you and I are so divided, that's an entirely different story.... but I think the fact that you can't even remotely see my point here... even your dismissal of Cruz's explanation but acceptance of Schumer's says a lot about it to me.

Seriously, buzz off with the bolded. It has nothing to do with not seeing your point - I posted what I wanted to post and that was all I wanted to post about.

Don't take my desire to talk about what I want to, as any indication of a supposed lack of comprehension of your point. I added an aside, which I didn't think was controversial, and here we are - you telling me what I don't understand and what I am misrepresenting.

Well, my choices were between 'I've not made my point clear to you'... OR 'I have, but you'd rather deflect from it. I assumed the former, but I'm rethinking it based on your response.

Your own follow up here blows up your response. Not one mention of Stewart and his pressure. It seems Toomey was the lead on this. If ANYONE folded, it was Toomey... but more to the point, it seems clear that enough 'minor' changes were in the bill to warrant a little more discussion, and that is what happened. Pretty simple it seems.

Quote:I ******* get that you're providing a commentary about the press, it's clear as ******* day. I didn't care to get into that conversation and wanted to add an aside about Stewart and then the PACT Act voting process itself.

Well, you FIRST said that you were doing it to respond to my question... and now you say it's an aside. If you want to talk about it, what more do you want to say about it and how does it relate to the issue?? I mean, it is an aside, for certain... which could also be termed a 'deflection'.

Would you prefer that I assume that you're intentionally deflecting from the point of the thread?

As to my comment about 'you not seeing my point', If you think what you said is responsive to my point, then you don't get it... and you AT FIRST said it was. Forgive me for taking you at your word. I should have just known that when you said 'providing you with the answer' what you meant was 'making what I thought was an interesting aside'.

(08-05-2022 01:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 01:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 01:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As to why you and I are so divided, that's an entirely different story.... but I think the fact that you can't even remotely see my point here... even your dismissal of Cruz's explanation but acceptance of Schumer's says a lot about it to me.

Seriously, buzz off with the bolded. It has nothing to do with not seeing your point - I posted what I wanted to post and that was all I wanted to post about.

Don't take my desire to talk about what I want to, as any indication of a supposed lack of comprehension of your point. I added an aside, which I didn't think was controversial, and here we are - you telling me what I don't understand and what I am misrepresenting.

Well, my choices were between 'I've not made my point clear to you'... OR 'I have, but you'd rather deflect from it. I assumed the former, but I'm rethinking it based on your response.

Your own follow up here blows up your response. Not one mention of Stewart and his pressure. It seems Toomey was the lead on this. If ANYONE folded, it was Toomey... but more to the point, it seems clear that enough 'minor' changes were in the bill to warrant a little more discussion, and that is what happened. Pretty simple it seems.

Quote:I ******* get that you're providing a commentary about the press, it's clear as ******* day. I didn't care to get into that conversation and wanted to add an aside about Stewart and then the PACT Act voting process itself.

Well, you FIRST said that you were doing it to respond to my question... and now you say it's an aside. If you want to talk about it, what more do you want to say about it and how does it relate to the issue?? I mean, it is an aside, for certain... which could also be termed a 'deflection'.

Would you prefer that I assume that you're intentionally deflecting from the point of the thread?

As to my comment about 'you not seeing my point', If you think what you said is responsive to my point, then you don't get it... and you AT FIRST said it was. Forgive me for taking you at your word. I should have just known that when you said 'providing you with the answer' what you meant was 'making what I thought was an interesting aside'.

Deflect from your point? Christ, THAT is the only other option? Something combative and, frankly, insulting? You double down twice in this post on this deflecting idea, which says a lot. This is the Quad after all, a forum that is notorious for threads staying on topic and not having any asides or rabbit holes that deviate from the topic of a thread...

It's just mind boggling that you're not willing to even thing that I was just adding something related to the conversation and doing nothing more.

Dude, I could give a flying **** who got credit. I'm not trying to argue that Stewart deserved credit for Cruz changing his mind, so there is no response to blow up. I know you can't point to a single thing I've posted that even comes close to arguing that. I said "I'll note that Jon Stewart is getting a lot of attention because he has been," note that there is nothing about Ted Cruz or credit for the change. You're trying to reframe my comment to fit your interpretation of it without listening to what I am saying then nor now.

I'll be even more explicit, so hopefully you'll shove off with the entire last line of commentary. When I read your statement "And the media credits John Stewart?? But not the veterans who were also there protesting?? " which is what I first responded to, I read that to say "And the media credits John Stewart for getting the bill passed?? But not the veterans who were also there protesting??"

You've made it clear you were saying that the media was crediting Cruz for changing his mind. I don't think Stewart changed Ted Cruz's mind. I think Stewart used his celebrity to elevate the issue and make the public take notice. Whether that had any impact - no idea.

I've found this entire situation difficult to comprehend because there are no good sources that dig into the details of what actually happened and changed, so I'm not really willing to throw anyone under the bus on either side.

(08-05-2022 02:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Deflect from your point? Christ, THAT is the only other option? Something combative and, frankly, insulting? You double down twice in this post on this deflecting idea, which says a lot. This is the Quad after all, a forum that is notorious for threads staying on topic and not having any asides or rabbit holes that deviate from the topic of a thread...

It's just mind boggling that you're not willing to even thing that I was just adding something related to the conversation and doing nothing more.

Lad... If you wanted to talk about something else, that's fine... but you CLAIMED you were responding to my question... and you didn't. All of this hand waving and flailing you're doing now doesn't change that. Straying off topic? You were the second response in the thread... and you claimed that you were on topic by answering my question.

Quote:Dude, I could give a flying **** who got credit. I'm not trying to argue that Stewart deserved credit for Cruz changing his mind, so there is no response to blow up. I know you can't point to a single thing I've posted that even comes close to arguing that. I said "I'll note that Jon Stewart is getting a lot of attention because he has been," note that there is nothing about Ted Cruz or credit for the change. You're trying to reframe my comment to fit your interpretation of it without listening to what I am saying then nor now.

I'm not reframing anything Lad... you said you were responding to my question... and you're not. YOU quite literally reframed my question.

I'm clearly talking about the media, and have been from the start.... and you seem to agree on that point below... which would have been a GREAT way to respond and something we could have agreed upon.

Quote:I'll be even more explicit, so hopefully you'll shove off with the entire last line of commentary. When I read your statement "And the media credits John Stewart?? But not the veterans who were also there protesting?? " which is what I first responded to, I read that to say "And the media credits John Stewart for getting the bill passed?? But not the veterans who were also there protesting??"

Well that 's on you for adding words I didn't say. I can't help you with that. The headline is clear that it was about crediting Stewart for making Cruz fold, and that is precisely what I spoke about. Shove off yourself for adding things I didn't say and then blaming me for it.

Quote:You've made it clear you were saying that the media was crediting Cruz for changing his mind. I don't think Stewart changed Ted Cruz's mind. I think Stewart used his celebrity to elevate the issue and make the public take notice. Whether that had any impact - no idea.

Well good, since that was the entire point of the thread....

But that isn't what the media is peddling... and I wanted to point that out... Glad to know 15 posts in or whatever that you agree.

Quote:I've found this entire situation difficult to comprehend because there are no good sources that dig into the details of what actually happened and changed, so I'm not really willing to throw anyone under the bus on either side.

While you're not throwing anyone under the bus, your reactions are still being tainted... as all of ours can be... case in point...

You read an article that said (and accepted) that Schumer had a reason for doing something... and you said... okay. You didn't say you had 'no idea' why he did it... you accepted an explanation you were given by the media it seems, maybe quoting him, IDK.

You then read another article that said that Republicans changed their votes over 'funding' issues, and that doesn't seem to be the truth... but you read it so you believed it... and now you 'question' Republicans motivations, since what you were told doesn't seem to be a problem (the funding side).

You yourself just gave another example of the media (I don't know your source for the 'funding' comment) because the one you linked that I read 'mostly' admitted that there were changes to 'discretionary' spending, which is precisely what Cruz said it was in the article I linked... So why do you have 'no idea' why Cruz changed his vote, but you seem to have confidence as to why Schumer changed his? IMO, specifically because the media gave you reason to question Republicans, but no reason to question Democrats.

I can point out precisely what they're doing... and in no way am I saying that Fox or anyone else doesn't do the same... they certainly do...

But what I'm trying to point out is the impact that they have on people and discussions.

You gave a great example in that when Schumer said he had a technical reason to vote 'no', your sources didn't challenge that... so you had no real reason to... but when Cruz said he did it because of a change from discretionary to mandatory, these sources came back not challenging the comment that 'not one word was changed' or 'they're really upset about the funding side'.

Had they instead reported as they did with Schumer's comment... reporting what they said.... that Cruz and company voted no because there was a change that created a potential waste of money that they wanted to discuss more, and after discussing it, they voted for the bill... that would have been consistent with everything they said... AND with the actions that were taken... and even ultimately, in the last link you provided where they say that position 'has some merit'.

They STILL could have talked all day long about Stewart... but it would have united us rather than dividing us.

And I THINK you agree, because you said that you agreed that their comment about why Cruz changed his vote wasn't true.