Yeah, anything MTG puts forward that isn’t already supported by Republicans is likely pointless nuttery (the supported stuff is dangerous nuttery). But more generally, these people all know when a bill is going to be 50/50 and when it’s going to get 400 no votes.
That’s not to say representatives never should be judged for their votes on doomed bills, but their vote should be in the context of it just being a statement itself, and with MTG writing the amendment, the statement is a muddled mess.
So I’m exposing my ignorance here, but I have a question.
Apart from MTG’s association, how am I to make the distinction between a “real” bill and a “statement “ bill?
I understand what you’re saying, and have been persuaded by your latest comment; I’m just hung up on that “just a statement bill” thing.
E: I guess it’s literally as simple as “MTG is such a joke that her bills will never pass”.
Yeah, anything MTG puts forward that isn’t already supported by Republicans is likely pointless nuttery (the supported stuff is dangerous nuttery). But more generally, these people all know when a bill is going to be 50/50 and when it’s going to get 400 no votes.
That’s not to say representatives never should be judged for their votes on doomed bills, but their vote should be in the context of it just being a statement itself, and with MTG writing the amendment, the statement is a muddled mess.