Basically, it didn’t get a hearing to get out of committee.
And how does that not confirm the point of the article? No, seriously, I have no idea how the whole committee system works; who would’ve been responsible for getting it to a proper vote?
I’m also interested in getting a better understanding of how this works. I’m hopeful the comments OP comes back to explain. I genuinely would like to know exactly where this fell apart, because it doesn’t seem like that outrageous of an idea.
Do you think for one second that this would have been even reported on if it was the other side? The headline should have read that it didn’t get out of committee and made boring, just like all of the crazy shit they sane wash for trump.
Uh… that has nothing to do with what I asked? Is there context that challenges the framing of the article? Because the article treats the bill not getting out of committee as adding insult to injury rather than a boring event.
Basically, it didn’t get a hearing to get out of committee. Another fucked up headline politico. You’re consistently proving your worth.
Stop carrying water for fakes.
And which party controls the committee? Go on, say it.
And how does that not confirm the point of the article? No, seriously, I have no idea how the whole committee system works; who would’ve been responsible for getting it to a proper vote?
I’m also interested in getting a better understanding of how this works. I’m hopeful the comments OP comes back to explain. I genuinely would like to know exactly where this fell apart, because it doesn’t seem like that outrageous of an idea.
Instead, they came back to insult the person saying that if Republicans did it no one would complain.
Weird how the DNC always gets away with bullshit but you aren’t allowed to talk about it.
Do you think for one second that this would have been even reported on if it was the other side? The headline should have read that it didn’t get out of committee and made boring, just like all of the crazy shit they sane wash for trump.
Uh… that has nothing to do with what I asked? Is there context that challenges the framing of the article? Because the article treats the bill not getting out of committee as adding insult to injury rather than a boring event.