• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    91 year ago

    more support from Democrats than Republicans.

    voted 335-91

    Come on, Reuters, you’re supposed to be above that kind of crap!

    • @randon31415
      link
      141 year ago

      By my count: 211 Democrats supported it, 1 oppose it; 131 Republicans supported it, 90 oppose it. Isn’t 211>131?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        131 year ago

        Yes, but my point is that it passed with an overwhelming majority including a majority of Republicans, making it a moot point not worthy of consideration.

        • FuglyDuck
          link
          English
          221 year ago

          while yes, it was a majority of replublicans… 131 to 90 wasn’t not “overwhelming”. 40% of republicans- the party that crafted the bill in the first place- did not support the republican bill. for comparison, only .004% of democrats opposed it.

          To put it bluntly, despite having control of the house numerically, democrat are controlling the agenda because republicans are paralyzed by morons that can’t even compromise with their own party

          • @charles
            link
            English
            91 year ago

            To be pedantic, 0.4% of Democrats opposed.

            But yeah I agree that it is relevant that it was passed with more D than R votes.

          • @Serinus
            link
            21 year ago

            Apparently not. They’re doing their jobs for at least the next 45 days.

            Listening to shit like MTG is what would keep them paralyzed.

            • FuglyDuck
              link
              English
              71 year ago

              This bill should have been done months ago. No; they’re not doing their jobs.

              The scratched out a loss here- gave the democrats most of what they wanted- a clean funding bill. It’s still just a can kick…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        Ways to interpret the numbers can skew the truth and focus on irrelevant details that derail the conversation, though, like in this case.

        Focusing on which party had the biggest margin when the majority of both parties voted in favour is needlessly furthering a sensationalist narrative that helps the Freedumb Caucus and hurts any chance of achieving a long term deal.