Sure
Was it infighting or disagreements? Were there members in vulnerable areas?
I’m sure I’ll think of more, but off the top of my head, if the issue is systematic or specific. If the infighting is not about a certain issue or two (and is distinctly not disagreements being painted as infighting) but spreading to all issues…
Again, keep in mind I’m NOT making judgements as to whether these things are good or bad.
Honest question, and I’m not trying to use this as an ad hom, nor will it be used in my replys to you as such; but how old are you?
Is there a meaningful difference I’m not aware of?
Not sure, but as a personal rule, I don’t accept this as a legitimate reason for voting one way or another. We’ll have to agree to disagree on whether or not this is a valid metric worth noting.
So since the infighting has been systematic, and has spread to almost every issue the GOP has touched, are you of the opinion that this falls into the “refusing to” bucket?
To me, sure.
Disagreements are had between mature adults in the open market place of ideas. Some are intellectual, some of not. Arguing the virtues of free speech vs hate speech laws between two established “intellectuals” is a disagreement. Two people arguing where Tom Brady is better than Payton Manning is a disagreement.
Infighting would be more along the lines of immature contrarians cutting of their nose to spite their face. For example, @anon50325502 and I pretty much see eye to eye on civil rights regarding firearms and abortion, but he refuses to accept TB12 as lord and savior. If I were to take his blasphemy so personal, that I started to argue a position opposite his on civil rights and abortion, because I now see him an an enemy of mine, and I can’t let him win, that would be infighting.
Sort of like the two parties in the US spend an awful lot of time spinning and counter spinning everything the other party does into “the most worst evil mankind has ever thought of, literally Hitler”. Well that kind of bullshit is expected between two parties. If that kind of attitude starts to happen within a single party that is infighting. However two dems having a conversation about whether to try and ban all guns vs trying to ban just rifles is just a disagreement. Taken to a higher level, Dem A could want a total ban, and Dem B could actually be in favor of civil rights, and they can discuss why each other is wrong, even argue. But at the end of the day they are reasonable and leave the disagreement at that. Infighting would see that fight spread to other issues they otherwise agree on…
I agree with you that it is an unacceptable way to govern.
However I understand that is how a lot of representatives govern. So because reality dictates that is how some people will vote, it matters when discussing whether a party was unable to pass, or refused to pass a bill.
I don’t know what my opinion on that question is, haven’t spent enough time thinking about it.
I am of the opinion that the tribalists of both parties are different in how they handle governing. Those on the left could disagree about 99 issues and come together over the one issue they agree on to support a candidate to a much higher degree that those on the right. While some on the right will, it seems those on the right could agree on 99 out of 100 issues, and spend a lot of time on the one issue they disagree on and ultimately not support a candidate they otherwise like.
I’m speaking in general terms here obviously. And depending on your perspective I could argue both as good or bad.
I had meant in regards to the results, but I see your point.
I’m personally of the opinion that as we, the masses, continue to think like this, we empower Pols to keep going and remove their incentive to change/improve.
With that in mind, do you recant/regret the following?
Lol, “TB12” fucking gage me…
Yeah, agreed.
However, politics is a dirty game and there is too much money at stake to expect a majority of people to act with virtue.
I used to think term limits would help this, but I’m not sure anymore.
Plus tribalism is a real, and from an evolutionary perspective, very important part of human behavior. So people will excuse the piss poor behavior of those in their tribe, and shun the very same behavior of someone of the other tribe, even if they have to banter down to the most minute detail and nuance to do so.
As someone who is trying to keep my head out of too many bubbles… I just sort of come to expect that type behavior and move on with my life. I can’t put the effort needed to make a difference at this point in my life.
No because it’s two different things I’m talking about.
ED said they refused to do maintenance. That is a false statement. They absolutely tried, and at least twice (three times with the EO now.)
I’m saying the in quote above this, I don’t have an opinion on whether they couldn’t pass the bills or refused to pass the bills.
I’ve been very, very guilty of this, on this very board too.
Have they intro’d a bill that is “maintenance” and not attempting to simply destroy Ocare? Is attempting to destroy Ocare the same as “maintaining” it?
If they refused to pass the bill, they refused to maintain Ocare, by definition, right? And you haven’t thought about it enough to know if they refused or couldn’t? So how can you claim ED is being dishonest when you, yourself, admit you don’t know if the GOP was even attempting to maintain Ocare in the first place?
You claiming I said things I didn’t say here.
I said I don’t have an opinion on whether they couldn’t pass or refused to pass.
Neither was a full repeal, so no I don’t sense an attempt to destroy, and yes that would be maintenance.
Either way, you’re getting into semantics.
I said you’ve stated ED was being intellectually dishonest (absolutely true). I said you’ve stated you haven’t thought about it enough to know if they couldn’t or refused (absolutely true).
Was I supposed to read “I don’t have an opinion on if they couldn’t pass or refused to pass” and think anything other than you “admit you don’t know if the GOP was attempting to maintain Ocare”
If they COULDNT pass it, they were trying and failed. If they REFUSED to pass it, they, by definition, didn’t try to pass it.
If I’m putting words in your mouth feel free to point out specifically what’s not right.
Does that equate to “any bill that isn’t a full repeal = maintenance?”
Semantics in the sense that I’m trying to include intent into the discussion on whether or not they tried to maintain Ocare? Seems like that’s the lynchpin the entire argument sits on.
If they never intended to pass the bill (ie the “refused” bucket) then how can anyone claim they “attempted to maintain Ocare?”
Trumps racist as fuck…everyone who doesn’t see it is the dumbass…
Nothing draws me away from the middle like sjw’s screaming that you’re an idiot if you don’t see things the way that they do.
I makes me want to run to their side and apologize profusely for the error of my ways.
I’ll have to officially do that at the next meeting of the vagina hats to protest the misogynist scumbag Harvey Weinstein.
Trump is either racist or is addicted to saying racist things. And not saying all Trump supporters are racist but most racists are Trump supporters.
I’d love to see the percentage of people who fly a confederate flag that voted for Hilary or Obama. I’ve been around a lot of these type of people being around rural areas of Kansas a lot of my life and they fly the confederate flag with pride and it ain’t because of southern heritage. Also a LOT of these people are on government assistance but hate the government.
Fun fact about 5 or 6 years ago a person in the Topeka paper asked to call a meeting because he wanted to know why it was socially wrong for him to say the n word as a white guy. Always wondered how many people went to that and what came out of it!
Don’t just make the claim. Make a list.
Share this wokeness of yours with us plebes, because apparently, I just don’t get it.
Give us the quotes and an explanation of what exactly is racist about each.
What’s worth saving about Obamacare? Not a troll question, sincerely.
It’d probably be easier to just Google “racist things trump has said” and explain how the examples that pop up aren’t racist.
I’m pretty tone deaf to it, so I’d like some explanation accompanying the quotes.
Im not 100% sure on these but I can say on ACA they made huge diff for my fam.
Pre existing conditions
Preventative care
Theres a type of discount built in for check ups and stuff so you dont just go when your fucked. Also basic shit like vacines & shots for kids is in there. I had my son pre ACA cost me like 8k by time he had all shots…healthy no issues. My daughter was 1st yr of ACA was about 2k. Pre when I got sick or injured it was a mother Fr now its reasonable. Most of us that use the market place are just regular dudes. Carpenters plumbers small biz guys. Are there welfare puppies on medicaid sure. But dont lump all us in the moocher category cuz we dont wanna get screwed on med bills. Btw im with ya on that theory bout Obama 
