Apparently Heather Heyer's mother (the girl who was killed in Charlottesville) had to have her daughter's ashes buried in a secret grave to prevent vandalism from white supremacists threatening her family:
That is horrible. I really think I'm right about the passage of time thing but it is small consolation to the people of the here and now. I'm more of a big picture thinker so thank you for the reminder that my way of thinking doesn't console everyone. Life sucks in so many ways...
You'd think if they hated her (and the people protesting them that day) that much, that her being dead would be enough consolation. Who sends hate mail or threats to a grieving mother?? Case in point, when my mother died, my classmate who was sort of a bully (and basically my arch-nemesis in elementary school) totally unexpectedly came to the funeral (even though we became cordial as the years went on, we were never close) and I remember seeing him crying in the back of the church. That's how normal humans react even if you had a bad history with someone when someone dies. I realize most of these goons wouldn't have actually done it, but you can be sure with the climate in this country that a couple people would have traveled god knows how many miles to deface her gravestone or memorial. Why?? What's the point??
Hatred doesn't need a point.
I'm actually starting to realize that I'm not really a true conservative. I'm just for slow change to avoid violence. I have an insight into how conservative people think and I know that change doesn't have to devolve into violence if those folks have time to adjust. Seriously, people pushing too hard just leads to entrenched positions...
My parents think I'm a liberal but don't really fight me a whole lot. My daughter will be more liberal than I am and I don't really have a problem with that. My parents and I are not atypical of society as a whole (at least I don't think so) so things will change with the passage of time. The difference is how fast you want the changes. Forcing your will on people is not the same as people agreeing with you. One way is a battle, the other is proving your point. Prove your points and society will follow.
I mean I get that this stance is well meaning, but it historically hasn't worked out for minorities and other marginalized groups. The most profound changes have come quickly and before the majority was ready.
It isn't even remotely a technicality. It's the whole reason for the bill. To change it, specific laws would have to be passed in 2025 to revert things to how they are now. If those laws aren't passed, the situation WILL BE a tax increase for the lower and middle class. The entire bill is written to do everything it can to LET them expire, while specifically making the corporate tax cuts permanent. If they wanted the cuts for average people to be permanent, they would have made them so. They didn't. They expire and the provisions for the rich don't.
I think you're letting your argument be far too much guided by imagining the worst intentions for the future in your political opponents, rather than by what's actually happening and can be reasonably expected to happen.
The idea that red states with low taxes contribute more to the federal coffers in regards to tax revenue is laughable.
I haven't made any statement about the overall fiscal balance of "red" or "blue" states. Are you really so possessed by resentful partisanship that you can only see the issue in those terms?
Surely, the fairness (and removal) of a tax rule that essentially makes low-tax counties/cities/states pay for high-tax ones, can be evaluated independently of the effective money transfers happening via entitlements etc. from rich to poor regions, and independently of the average voting behavior of people in different states.
But NOW all of a sudden on nearly EVERY issue that comes up, be it Net Neutrality or this, the GOP is attempting to usurp the rights of blue states on everything from gun and internet regulation to taxation on their own residents. [...] Point being, Republicans seem to have completely abandoned even the CONCEPT of federalism since Trump took office
I don't think the Conservative ideal of federalism requires letting states opt out of respecting the Constitutional rights of citizens, or giving local governments easy ways to offload local taxes on residents of other parts of the country. So at least two of your three given examples are very much debatable (and I don't understand enough about the third to evaluate it).
That said, I wouldn't exactly call the GOP very successful at realizing conservative ideals (nor small-r-republican or even libertarian ideals). They don't seem to be achieving very much at all, and when they do it often shows that they're affected by much of the same corruption (in the wider sense of the word) as the rest of the Washington political establishment.
But the hate-boner for them that you and a few other commenters seem to have going on, and the constant demonization and jumping-on-every-little-news-bite-with-bad-faith-interpretations-and-outrage, with which you guys seem to have dominated this thread for hundreds of pages and counting, is really something else.
But the hate-boner for them that you and a few other commenters seem to have going on, and the constant demonization and jumping-on-every-little-news-bite-with-bad-faith-interpretations-and-outrage, with which you guys seem to have dominated this thread for hundreds of pages and counting, is really something else.
Indeed. It's called "discussing what is really truly happening right now." In a nation awash with fake news from the political right, the right wing media, and the alt right, having someone (like @jjstraka34) tell the truth is refreshing.
My parents think I'm a liberal but don't really fight me a whole lot. My daughter will be more liberal than I am and I don't really have a problem with that. My parents and I are not atypical of society as a whole (at least I don't think so) so things will change with the passage of time. The difference is how fast you want the changes. Forcing your will on people is not the same as people agreeing with you. One way is a battle, the other is proving your point. Prove your points and society will follow.
I mean I get that this stance is well meaning, but it historically hasn't worked out for minorities and other marginalized groups. The most profound changes have come quickly and before the majority was ready.
You mean like how they abolished slavery even when a whole lot of people were against it and then we have had 200 years of a whole lot of people who don't want to accept it trying to push back through Jim Crow and the KKK and stuff like that? Gay marriage was made the law of the land and how Republicans don't accept it so they voted for a sexual assaulter who promised to put an anti-gay supreme court justice on the supreme court. FDR passed social security and it was so popular that Republicans were so reactionary that they are still trying to abolish it today if they could (Paul Ryan, Rand Paul)
Some people are beyond help without HELP. They need their heads adjusted somehow because leaving them on their own they start dreaming up ways to be racists through their laws of their states and through their over-representation in government through federal laws.
There definitely needs to be some education reform and it aint school vouchers so that rich kids can go to private schools. And it's not No Child Left Behind because that's a hot mess of garbage based on standardized tests that gets teachers to teach the test only and when the kids leave school they don't know anything. So basically NOT a Republican education plan is what we need. Education is the death of ignorance. Republicans fight to keep people stupid.
But the hate-boner for them that you and a few other commenters seem to have going on, and the constant demonization and jumping-on-every-little-news-bite-with-bad-faith-interpretations-and-outrage, with which you guys seem to have dominated this thread for hundreds of pages and counting, is really something else.
Let's not get personal here, people. Criticizing public figures, trends, and ideas is fine, but per the Site Rules, your fellow forumites are off-limits.
The seven words are diversity, entitlement, evidence-based, science-based, fetus, transgender, and vulnerable.
The HHS says this is a mischaracterization, so hopefully the ban isn't real. But if it is, this is censorship, pure and simple. And it will have an impact on the CDC's work.
The seven words are diversity, entitlement, evidence-based, science-based, fetus, transgender, and vulnerable.
The HHS says this is a mischaracterization, so hopefully the ban isn't real. But if it is, this is censorship, pure and simple. And it will have an impact on the CDC's work.
Having lived through the Bush Administration where similar things happened, the good bet is that it is neither a mischaractarization nor an accident. Rick Scott made the same type decree in Florida in regards to climate science. This isn't the first time it's come up. This is at least the 4th time I can remember:
Rumor is Trump could fire Mueller before Christmas
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) said Friday that "rumors" on Capitol Hill suggest President Trump could fire special counsel Robert Mueller before Christmas, after Congress leaves Washington for the winter recess.
"We can read between the lines I think," Speier said . "I believe this president wants all of this shut down. He wants to shut down these investigations, and he wants to fire special counsel Mueller."
“The rumor on the Hill when I left yesterday was that the president was going to make a significant speech at the end of next week. And on Dec. 22, when we are out of D.C., he was going to fire Robert Mueller," Speier told California's KQED News.
The New York Times reported Friday that the House committee is scheduling its final witnesses of the year to testify in New York, despite important votes coming up in Washington, D.C., and confirmed no additional witnesses are scheduled for 2018.
"Republicans have scheduled no witnesses after next Friday and none in 2018. We have dozens of outstanding witnesses on key aspects of our investigation that they refuse to contact and many document requests they continue to sit on," tweeted the ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.),Friday.
I should add it will also have an impact on vulnerable populations, such as transgender people.
@jjstraka34 Thanks for the reminder. I'd forgotten about that.
Stuff like this is what drives me most nuts. I saw this playbook for 8 years, except now it's 5x worse. So it isn't all that hard to predict what is coming down the pike. The same group of people behind the scenes (in regards to special interest groups) are pulling the stings as they were then. The only problem is that instead of George W. Bush, who was a disaster but at least made some pretense at being an actual President (despite being horrible at it), we now have someone who isn't interested in anything other than stroking his own authoritarian impulses on a daily basis. And he is taking the party right along with him. This was always coming. 30 years of these type of blatant, calculated lies getting filtered to it's intended audience has reached it's boiling point. This is either the end of the American right-wing as we have known them since Goldwater, or it's the end of the country (and trajectory) we have known since Roosevelt. It's going to be one or the other.
Furthermore, the last time we did a big tax cut (in 2001 and 2003), the clock started ticking. I assume everyone remembers 2008. We're ten years out now. The stock market cannot go up perpetually. The meager regulations the Democrats were able to put on the financial institutions are being wiped away. There are more bubbles growing and waiting to be burst as we speak (this insanity with Bitcoin could be a canary in the coalmine). With the economy relatively stable, we should be raising taxes and paying down the debt so that WHEN the next recession hits, we can spend to get out of it. But we've blown a hole in the deficit the size of Saturn instead. In 2020, or 2024, a Democrat is going to be asked by the American people to come clean up the mess. And then they'll ask them what's taking so long and why they can't fix things faster.
Judging by the episode's predictions, the incoming Balanced Breakfast program is about to create a generation of ultra-strong supercriminals. And the Midnight Basketball program will teach them to function without sleep.
Seems eminently solvable, though. All we need is a whole bunch of Chinese needle snakes to eat the supercriminals, followed by the introduction of snake-eating gorillas. Once the gorillas freeze to death in the winter, all we have to worry about are gorilla White Walkers.
Everyone knows crocodiles are natural enemies of gorillas, so all we need then is a horde of Kremlings to eat the gorilla zombies, at which point we could wipe out the Kremlings simply by jumping on their heads.
well the the reason is not accurate. They played it for laughs that Trump would care about children as being the reason the country is broke but they picked him because he is a clown selling Trump steaks and conning people with Trump University. And he was undergoing his many bankruptcies and still bragging about himself and lying as he is wont to do.
The part about President Trump destroying the economy could prove accurate. The Simpsons called President Trump in 2000.
The seven words are diversity, entitlement, evidence-based, science-based, fetus, transgender, and vulnerable.
The HHS says this is a mischaracterization, so hopefully the ban isn't real. But if it is, this is censorship, pure and simple. And it will have an impact on the CDC's work.
Meh, they are scientists with a thesaurus:
diversity becomes multicultural/multisexual entitlement becomes privileged evidence-based and science-based based becomes data from Phds in the field of {blank} fetus becomes unborn child transgender is more difficult but easily can get around with pronouns vulnerable become sensitive.
These aren't vulgar terms. Even the original seven dirty words have sensible synonyms that people can get around.
I hope it's not true. These are hardly dangerous words. Some of them are pretty darn good.
The evidence we have been presented with is that most of Trump's important cabinet positions are filled by people who have made a career out of wanting to destroy the department they are now in charge of, or being completely unqualified for the position. Education, EPA, Energy, HUD, etc. I don't see why there is any reason to doubt at the end of this year after all we have seen that the same thing is happening at the CDC. I think we've moved well beyond the "benefit of the doubt" phase with this Administration. More than ever in history, I think you almost have to ASSUME at this point that the default Administration statement or position on any issue is just a straight-up falsehood, and work forward from there. If your kid was caught sneaking out of the house for the 4th time in a month, I doubt anyone would believe them if they said they were just checking to make sure the garbage cans were out. Whatever anyone's worst impulses about these people in charge are, I'd suggest you DOUBLE that, and then you still won't be in the ballpark. It is that bad, it's going to keep getting worse, and there is no bottom.
If we assume that Trump is innocent of wrongdoing it would be absolute madness to fire Mueller. However, if Trump knows that a strong case is being built against him (and, in addition to the personnel cutting deals, Mueller's access to emails that Trump wished to hide suggests that is a real possibility) then even desperate actions may seem to make sense.
Like the NDAs Trump made his campaign staff sign that last for life Trump is a paragon of lies and distortion and keeping people that aren't him quiet. Not shocked he either came up with or agreed to a bright idea of trying to spin the truth by forbidding words. Of all the awful things he's doing this is a pretty minor one, but it is indefensible and easy to spot as something that is wrong. Forbidding scientists from speaking at climate change conferences and things like that haven't registered but this is the thing that's caught people's attention. Well folks, there is a lot worse going on behind the curtains.
CNN describes how conservative media such as Fox News is on a 24/7 smear campaign against Mueller and has created a feedback loop that Trump and other people in the conservative bubble are hearing. To me, Mueller is investigating away. He's been quiet but he's already had some results with Padadopolous, Flynn and others. But to people in this feedback loop, he's a democratic party partisan hack who secretly works for Hillary Clinton and Benghazi (lol he's a republican). http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/16/media/fox-news-campaign-against-fbi-robert-mueller/index.html
Trump's has a long-running habit of making people sign non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements before working with him. I'm going to go ahead and say that it's because he knows that people who know him closely will speak very poorly of him if they are allowed to do so.
I can understand non-disclosure agreements, but non-disparagement? I don't see the legitimate purpose of such an agreement.
An anonymous former official offered an alternative, benign explanation for the CDC seven words ban. It's not there to censor the CDC, but to make sure they use language that won't scare off Republican Congresspeople whose approval is necessary to attain funding:
“It’s absurd and Orwellian, it’s stupid and Orwellian, but they are not saying to not use the words in reports or articles or scientific publications or anything else the C.D.C. does,” the former official said. “They’re saying not to use it in your request for money because it will hurt you. It’s not about censoring what C.D.C. can say to the American public. It’s about a budget strategy to get funded.”
The level of spin on Fox News against Mueller is going in to overdrive. Maybe there is something to the rumor of Trump firing the current guy investigating him. He already fired Comey and said to the Russians that it was to relieve great pressure of the Russia investigation. Many people are saying that if he fires Mueller that will absolutely be a step too far.
The level of spin on Fox News against Mueller is going in to overdrive. Maybe there is something to the rumor of Trump firing the current guy investigating him. He already fired Comey and said to the Russians that it was to relieve great pressure of the Russia investigation. Many people are saying that if he fires Mueller that will absolutely be a step too far.
A step too far for who?? Because even so-called "moderates" (or Republicans the media still treats as normal) like Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn (who is the #2 man in the Senate) are basically now also attacking Mueller. I mean, who is left on the Republican side to stand up to this when and if it happens?? John McCain appears to be on his deathbed. Jeff Flake and Bob Corker are retiring (just needed to get that tax vote in and jump off the ship before it sinks). The House GOP is basically parroting FOX News in Congressional hearings. It's not going to be a step too far for the only people that matter, which is Republicans, and the 32% of the country who still supports him. Nixon had nearly as much support when he resigned. That was a different time, a different Republican Party that had some sense of shame. But it's not just that Republicans won't do anything if he fires Mueller, they, almost down to a person, seem to be ENCOURAGING and laying the groundwork for him to do so. There will be no heroes on that side of the fence. They are all going to follow him straight to hell. Because they don't even know what else to do at this point. The Republican Party has become more like a cult than a political party. I'm not entirely sure what we're supposed to do when (if) this happens and no Congressional action takes place. At that point the President will have declared himself above the law, just like Nixon did. I don't see any other choice other than mass protests across the country. If he were to get away with doing it, it would mean the end of the American experiment as we know it. He would basically be declaring himself emperor until the 2018 election.
The only true thing Donald Trump has ever said was that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes. It hardly seemed like an exaggeration to me at all at the time, and now it just feels like a simple truth. I actually believe his poll numbers would not fall below 30% if he murdered someone in broad daylight. I'm not even remotely kidding. 32% is a shitty place to be for an approval rating, but that 32% is ROCK solid.
With McCain skipping the last tax vote and going back to Arizona (sadly, I highly doubt he will ever be back), the numbers were looking dicey for the Republicans on the tax bill. There seems to be AMPLE evidence that Bob Corker, an initial holdout on the first Senate vote, was brought over based on a provision added at the last minute that benefits him PERSONALLY. Alot was made of the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback" in one of the drafts of the Obamacare bill to get Senator Ben Nelson's vote in 2010. Besides the fact that it was eventually nixed, at least the benefits of THAT provision would have went to his constituents in Nebraska. The last minute change to the tax bill seems to have been added to personally expand the wealth of both Bob Corker and Donald Trump, DIRECTLY: The International Business Times reports that a provision added during the reconciliation process allows owners of income-producing real estate to take advantage of a 20 percent deduction for "pass-through" entities. The Senate version of the tax bill included rules that allowed the deduction to be claimed only by businesses that pay their employees significant wages.
The new provision effectively creates a new tax deduction for real estate moguls like Trump and Corker, who announced his support for the bill on Friday after it was added. According to the International Business Times, 13 GOP lawmakers could benefit from the provision.
Both Trump and Corker have made millions off of "pass-through" income, according to the International Business Times. Trump made between $41 million and $68 million from 25 "pass-through" businesses he owned in 2016, while Corker earned between $1.2 million and $7 million in rental income from his companies last year.
This is just straight up bribery and theft. And not to benefit a particular state (which is still pretty shady), but to benefit certain individuals in the government. Bob Corker is changing his vote based on the potential of millions of dollars in his own pocket (and Trump's).
Comments
I'm actually starting to realize that I'm not really a true conservative. I'm just for slow change to avoid violence. I have an insight into how conservative people think and I know that change doesn't have to devolve into violence if those folks have time to adjust. Seriously, people pushing too hard just leads to entrenched positions...
Short version: You're defending the tyranny of the majority.
I mean I get that this stance is well meaning, but it historically hasn't worked out for minorities and other marginalized groups. The most profound changes have come quickly and before the majority was ready.
Are you really so possessed by resentful partisanship that you can only see the issue in those terms?
Surely, the fairness (and removal) of a tax rule that essentially makes low-tax counties/cities/states pay for high-tax ones, can be evaluated independently of the effective money transfers happening via entitlements etc. from rich to poor regions, and independently of the average voting behavior of people in different states. I don't think the Conservative ideal of federalism requires letting states opt out of respecting the Constitutional rights of citizens, or giving local governments easy ways to offload local taxes on residents of other parts of the country. So at least two of your three given examples are very much debatable (and I don't understand enough about the third to evaluate it).
That said, I wouldn't exactly call the GOP very successful at realizing conservative ideals (nor small-r-republican or even libertarian ideals). They don't seem to be achieving very much at all, and when they do it often shows that they're affected by much of the same corruption (in the wider sense of the word) as the rest of the Washington political establishment.
But the hate-boner for them that you and a few other commenters seem to have going on, and the constant demonization and jumping-on-every-little-news-bite-with-bad-faith-interpretations-and-outrage, with which you guys seem to have dominated this thread for hundreds of pages and counting, is really something else.
Some people are beyond help without HELP. They need their heads adjusted somehow because leaving them on their own they start dreaming up ways to be racists through their laws of their states and through their over-representation in government through federal laws.
There definitely needs to be some education reform and it aint school vouchers so that rich kids can go to private schools. And it's not No Child Left Behind because that's a hot mess of garbage based on standardized tests that gets teachers to teach the test only and when the kids leave school they don't know anything. So basically NOT a Republican education plan is what we need. Education is the death of ignorance. Republicans fight to keep people stupid.
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/16/571329234/trump-administration-reportedly-instructs-cdc-on-its-own-version-of-7-dirty-word
The seven words are diversity, entitlement, evidence-based, science-based, fetus, transgender, and vulnerable.
The HHS says this is a mischaracterization, so hopefully the ban isn't real. But if it is, this is censorship, pure and simple. And it will have an impact on the CDC's work.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/10/floridas-ban-of-the-term-climate-change-is-straight-out-of-the-bush-playbook/?utm_term=.52696e8e2a4f
@jjstraka34 Thanks for the reminder. I'd forgotten about that.
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) said Friday that "rumors" on Capitol Hill suggest President Trump could fire special counsel Robert Mueller before Christmas, after Congress leaves Washington for the winter recess.
"We can read between the lines I think," Speier said . "I believe this president wants all of this shut down. He wants to shut down these investigations, and he wants to fire special counsel Mueller."
“The rumor on the Hill when I left yesterday was that the president was going to make a significant speech at the end of next week. And on Dec. 22, when we are out of D.C., he was going to fire Robert Mueller," Speier told California's KQED News.
The New York Times reported Friday that the House committee is scheduling its final witnesses of the year to testify in New York, despite important votes coming up in Washington, D.C., and confirmed no additional witnesses are scheduled for 2018.
"Republicans have scheduled no witnesses after next Friday and none in 2018. We have dozens of outstanding witnesses on key aspects of our investigation that they refuse to contact and many document requests they continue to sit on," tweeted the ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.),Friday.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/365247-rep-speier-rumors-say-trump-could-fire-mueller-before-christmas
Basically after they get their tax cuts for the rich they got what they wanted and don't really care anymore.
Furthermore, the last time we did a big tax cut (in 2001 and 2003), the clock started ticking. I assume everyone remembers 2008. We're ten years out now. The stock market cannot go up perpetually. The meager regulations the Democrats were able to put on the financial institutions are being wiped away. There are more bubbles growing and waiting to be burst as we speak (this insanity with Bitcoin could be a canary in the coalmine). With the economy relatively stable, we should be raising taxes and paying down the debt so that WHEN the next recession hits, we can spend to get out of it. But we've blown a hole in the deficit the size of Saturn instead. In 2020, or 2024, a Democrat is going to be asked by the American people to come clean up the mess. And then they'll ask them what's taking so long and why they can't fix things faster.
Lisa Simpson becomes President after President Donald Trump has left America penniless he spent all the money.
Seems eminently solvable, though. All we need is a whole bunch of Chinese needle snakes to eat the supercriminals, followed by the introduction of snake-eating gorillas. Once the gorillas freeze to death in the winter, all we have to worry about are gorilla White Walkers.
Everyone knows crocodiles are natural enemies of gorillas, so all we need then is a horde of Kremlings to eat the gorilla zombies, at which point we could wipe out the Kremlings simply by jumping on their heads.
The part about President Trump destroying the economy could prove accurate. The Simpsons called President Trump in 2000.
diversity becomes multicultural/multisexual
entitlement becomes privileged
evidence-based and science-based based becomes data from Phds in the field of {blank}
fetus becomes unborn child
transgender is more difficult but easily can get around with pronouns
vulnerable become sensitive.
These aren't vulgar terms. Even the original seven dirty words have sensible synonyms that people can get around.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/365292-words-banned-at-cdc-were-also-banned-at-other-hhs-agencies-report
CNN describes how conservative media such as Fox News is on a 24/7 smear campaign against Mueller and has created a feedback loop that Trump and other people in the conservative bubble are hearing. To me, Mueller is investigating away. He's been quiet but he's already had some results with Padadopolous, Flynn and others. But to people in this feedback loop, he's a democratic party partisan hack who secretly works for Hillary Clinton and Benghazi (lol he's a republican).
http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/16/media/fox-news-campaign-against-fbi-robert-mueller/index.html
I can understand non-disclosure agreements, but non-disparagement? I don't see the legitimate purpose of such an agreement.
“It’s absurd and Orwellian, it’s stupid and Orwellian, but they are not saying to not use the words in reports or articles or scientific publications or anything else the C.D.C. does,” the former official said. “They’re saying not to use it in your request for money because it will hurt you. It’s not about censoring what C.D.C. can say to the American public. It’s about a budget strategy to get funded.”
Hunting down political opponents in your own agency is not something normal people do.
The only true thing Donald Trump has ever said was that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes. It hardly seemed like an exaggeration to me at all at the time, and now it just feels like a simple truth. I actually believe his poll numbers would not fall below 30% if he murdered someone in broad daylight. I'm not even remotely kidding. 32% is a shitty place to be for an approval rating, but that 32% is ROCK solid.
The International Business Times reports that a provision added during the reconciliation process allows owners of income-producing real estate to take advantage of a 20 percent deduction for "pass-through" entities. The Senate version of the tax bill included rules that allowed the deduction to be claimed only by businesses that pay their employees significant wages.
The new provision effectively creates a new tax deduction for real estate moguls like Trump and Corker, who announced his support for the bill on Friday after it was added. According to the International Business Times, 13 GOP lawmakers could benefit from the provision.
Both Trump and Corker have made millions off of "pass-through" income, according to the International Business Times. Trump made between $41 million and $68 million from 25 "pass-through" businesses he owned in 2016, while Corker earned between $1.2 million and $7 million in rental income from his companies last year.
This is just straight up bribery and theft. And not to benefit a particular state (which is still pretty shady), but to benefit certain individuals in the government. Bob Corker is changing his vote based on the potential of millions of dollars in his own pocket (and Trump's).