Conversation

SBF
@SBF_FTX
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
7) Shelby not yet objecting, but asking to get _his_ amendment as well, threatening to object otherwise. He's asking to tack his amendment on. Now Sanders threatening to object if Shelby's amendment is tacked on.
9
63
SBF
@SBF_FTX
8) Alright now it looks like Sanders is about to ask to tack on yet _another_ amendment, this one probably related to climate change. Sanders objecting.
1
40
SBF
@SBF_FTX
9) Alright, now Shelby and Toomey going back and forth on this. Shelby wants a defense spending amendment.
6
37
SBF
@SBF_FTX
10) Shelby objecting (!!!). So, after all of that, it looks like Shelby, R-Alabama, might be the one to kill the common-sense crypto amendment, because he wants _his_ military spending amendment...
19
203
SBF
@SBF_FTX
11) Ok, I have to say, it's beautiful how bi-partisan this particular excursion ended up being, _both_ in its backing and in its possible downfall. Toomey now responding say 'wtf how are we killing this complete consensus because of other irrelevant stuff, damaging innovation.'
7
167
SBF
@SBF_FTX
13) ok here we go again Cruz now suggesting an amendment. Shelby asks to include his language. Cruz.... looks like he's going to try saying no to including it and seeing what happens. Giving a speech aimed directly at Shelby, saying he agrees, but c'mon man, don't kill this.
6
90
SBF
@SBF_FTX
14) ok so this answers the question of 'what happens if someone just re-suggests the amendment under a different name'
4
57
SBF
@SBF_FTX
16) Now Sinema is probably taking a shot! But this will probably end the same way as the others.
6
82
SBF
@SBF_FTX
19) Whelp, not a lot to say about that one. It was a good attempt! It got bipartisan support. But it needed to get there a few days ago, when it only needed majority support; unanimous consent is really hard.
32
222
Show more replies