From the last time they were in control of more than just 1/3 of the legislative process--i.e. in control of at least one chamber of Congress and the Presidency (there's quite a bit, and not all of it I agree with):
Border control & jobs
- Thread starter Dadar
- Start date
Some probably would have, but the bill failed by 11 votes. I doubt they would have been able to close the gap. Maybe Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would have worked harder to wrangle the votes; but in the end, he voted against it too.
Either way, it's hard to lay this at Trump's feet when the Dem's, who were in control of the Senate and could have brought substantial procedural pressure against both parties (ala Nacy-P in the House), could not get all their members to toe the line.
Also, call me highly skeptical the "emergency threshold" is actually ever reached and subsequent provisions are ever actually activated. But to your point, if the bill is stripped of at least the foreign aid(*), I'd rather have it than not.
(*) Not that I am against foreign aid altogether, I just want these types of bills to stand on their own.
I agree with the sentiment,but negotiating like that is part of how bills get passed historically in America. You give some to get some.
Here is a reminder. The house passed a border bill and sent it to the senate many months before the bill you are talking about trump killing. The senate had border bill to pass. They had it for a long time and the dem party would not even take the bill up. Your insinuation that it was pubs who stopped any border bill from passing is just an outright lie. The dem party was too concerned about "Our Team" as you say, to pass a bill they had sitting right in front of them.
Similar threads
