5 ms·

What a joke. Another conservative politician calling for people to work together, for "real debate". I suppose the eight years of Republican stonewalling the Ob

What a joke. Another conservative politician calling for people to work together, for "real debate". I suppose the eight years of Republican stonewalling the Obama administration on literally everything, from legislation to judges to executive branch appointees, to an unheard of degree - is just supposed to be forgotten? Perhaps we should have a look at where he stood on the ACA - I don't suppose he was part of the Republicans that sought to repeal it for years and then didn't actually have any real policy ideas to replace it when they took control in 2016, exemplifying their bad-faith approach to politics? > He favors repealing the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.[41] In 2017, when House Republican leadership introduced the American Health Care Act (a bill to repeal the ACA), Hurd was faced with a political quandary.[42] Hurd did not say whether he supported or opposed the legislation.[41][43] Ultimately, after the measure was declared dead and withdrawn from a planned vote due to insufficient support, Hurd "released a statement in which he appeared to oppose the overhaul." Pathetic. The use of the ACA by Republicans for campaigning for nearly a decade and then their utter failure to repeal or replace it once they had full control of the federal government will stain them forever in my eyes (or at a minimum, the ones in federal office at the time). It would be great to have a government that focused on policy problems and policy solutions, that had reasoned, evidence-based debates on issues. Unfortunately, the Republican party has done more than any other force to destroy that (Office of Technology Assessment, anyone?). The fact that today, in 2019, we have a Republican president who refuses to admit global warming is a thing, is another exemplar of Republican policy and strategy - which is not to debate, but to avoid it; to hide and ignore and defund evidence when inconvenient; to focus on emotions instead of logic and reason. There's nothing useful to discuss with such people, and for them to complain on such grounds is hypocrisy of the highest order.

smush 7y ago
> There's nothing useful to discuss with such people, and for them to complain on such grounds is hypocrisy of the highest order. Refusal to engage with individuals on subject A (cyber-security) because you disagree on subject B (healthcare in this case) is unfortunate, and possibly a similar level of hypocrisy if one would otherwise posit being open-minded as a general rule.
- dariusj18 7y ago
  I think the perceived issue is not that they disagree on the subject, but that they fundamentally don't trust them to be working with you in good faith.
  - smush 7y ago
    I agree. If I were to place myself in the position of this congressman, I don't have a good answer to as how to convince them that I'm arguing in good faith. If the criterion for arguing in good faith is too narrowly defined, it can turn into 'agree with me on everything or else you are arguing in bad faith'
- mbrameld 7y ago
  It's not because of the disagreement, though. That's a creative interpretation of the comment you're replying to. This is the crux: > Republicans that sought to repeal it for years and then didn't actually have any real policy ideas to replace it when they took control in 2016, exemplifying their bad-faith approach to politics?
  - smush 7y ago
    I guess I must admit not seeing why the ACA directly relates to this cyber-security conference.
    - arkades 7y ago
      > exemplifying their bad-faith approach to politics One may agree or not, but I think his position is fairly clear, and not healthcare -specific.
    - mbrameld 7y ago
      It doesn't and I guess I must admit I'm having trouble seeing where you're getting confused with this concept. It honestly feels like you're being deliberately obtuse. It's not the ACA that's the problem, it's the behavior of the Republican legislators regarding the ACA. It could have been any piece of legislation. It's the behavior that's the issue. > Republicans that sought to repeal it for years and then didn't actually have any real policy ideas to replace it when they took control in 2016, exemplifying their bad-faith approach to politics? Read that quote. Now read it again. It fully and clearly explains the issue without naming the ACA. That's because the fact that the behavior was bought to light by the ACA is irrelevant. The ACA isn't the problem, the behavior is. "It" in that quote could be any piece of legislation and the behavior would still be troubling. Does that help you see? Do you finally understand?
forgottenpass 7y ago
> I suppose the eight years of Republican stonewalling the Obama administration on literally everything, from legislation to judges to executive branch appointees, to an unheard of degree - is just supposed to be forgotten? Well, it depends. Do you want to punish the other team, or get back to doing the country's work? Does America really have to take one for team while we go on another boneheaded "well, if we ignore governing and prioritize fucking over our opponents just this one time, it'll mean better governing in the long run" quest?
- mcphage 7y ago
  > Do you want to punish the other team, or get back to doing the country's work? Could you help me understand—is "running against the ACA for a decade and then having no workable plan for its replacement when you're finally in charge" an example of 'punishing the other team' or an example of 'doing the country's work'?
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > having no workable plan for its replacement when you're finally in charge Who exactly was "in charge" in 2017 and 2018? It seemed to me that there was not one united faction, nor any coalition, that on a number of popular issues could form a majority over that time period. It seems like it is the normal course of things for the lower and upper representative houses to represent what they will, and for that either to produce or preclude new policy.
    - mcphage 7y ago
      > Who exactly was "in charge" in 2017 and 2018? Probably the party that controlled both houses of Congress as well as the White House.
      - microcolonel 7y ago
        Do people not widely know that until recently a huge proportion of Republicans in both houses were never-Trumpers?
dang 7y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into political flamewar. Such discussions are tediously predictable, making them off topic here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: it looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. Some political overlap is inevitable with the topics that get posted here, but battling opponents is incompatible with the intellectual curiosity that HN exists for. When accounts are only or primarily doing that, we ban them. We have to, because otherwise such flames will take the site over completely. I've posted about this a lot if you or anyone wants more explanation: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=by:dang%20primarily%20test https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... The bottom line is, please use HN in its intended spirit, which is not this.

smush 7y ago

> There's nothing useful to discuss with such people, and for them to complain on such grounds is hypocrisy of the highest order. Refusal to engage with individuals on subject A (cyber-security) because you disagree on subject B (healthcare in this case) is unfortunate, and possibly a similar level of hypocrisy if one would otherwise posit being open-minded as a general rule.

dariusj18 7y ago
I think the perceived issue is not that they disagree on the subject, but that they fundamentally don't trust them to be working with you in good faith.
- smush 7y ago
  I agree. If I were to place myself in the position of this congressman, I don't have a good answer to as how to convince them that I'm arguing in good faith. If the criterion for arguing in good faith is too narrowly defined, it can turn into 'agree with me on everything or else you are arguing in bad faith'
mbrameld 7y ago
It's not because of the disagreement, though. That's a creative interpretation of the comment you're replying to. This is the crux: > Republicans that sought to repeal it for years and then didn't actually have any real policy ideas to replace it when they took control in 2016, exemplifying their bad-faith approach to politics?
- smush 7y ago
  I guess I must admit not seeing why the ACA directly relates to this cyber-security conference.
  - arkades 7y ago
    > exemplifying their bad-faith approach to politics One may agree or not, but I think his position is fairly clear, and not healthcare -specific.
  - mbrameld 7y ago
    It doesn't and I guess I must admit I'm having trouble seeing where you're getting confused with this concept. It honestly feels like you're being deliberately obtuse. It's not the ACA that's the problem, it's the behavior of the Republican legislators regarding the ACA. It could have been any piece of legislation. It's the behavior that's the issue. > Republicans that sought to repeal it for years and then didn't actually have any real policy ideas to replace it when they took control in 2016, exemplifying their bad-faith approach to politics? Read that quote. Now read it again. It fully and clearly explains the issue without naming the ACA. That's because the fact that the behavior was bought to light by the ACA is irrelevant. The ACA isn't the problem, the behavior is. "It" in that quote could be any piece of legislation and the behavior would still be troubling. Does that help you see? Do you finally understand?

forgottenpass 7y ago

> I suppose the eight years of Republican stonewalling the Obama administration on literally everything, from legislation to judges to executive branch appointees, to an unheard of degree - is just supposed to be forgotten? Well, it depends. Do you want to punish the other team, or get back to doing the country's work? Does America really have to take one for team while we go on another boneheaded "well, if we ignore governing and prioritize fucking over our opponents just this one time, it'll mean better governing in the long run" quest?

mcphage 7y ago
> Do you want to punish the other team, or get back to doing the country's work? Could you help me understand—is "running against the ACA for a decade and then having no workable plan for its replacement when you're finally in charge" an example of 'punishing the other team' or an example of 'doing the country's work'?
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > having no workable plan for its replacement when you're finally in charge Who exactly was "in charge" in 2017 and 2018? It seemed to me that there was not one united faction, nor any coalition, that on a number of popular issues could form a majority over that time period. It seems like it is the normal course of things for the lower and upper representative houses to represent what they will, and for that either to produce or preclude new policy.
  - mcphage 7y ago
    > Who exactly was "in charge" in 2017 and 2018? Probably the party that controlled both houses of Congress as well as the White House.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      Do people not widely know that until recently a huge proportion of Republicans in both houses were never-Trumpers?

dang 7y ago

Please don't take HN threads further into political flamewar. Such discussions are tediously predictable, making them off topic here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: it looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. Some political overlap is inevitable with the topics that get posted here, but battling opponents is incompatible with the intellectual curiosity that HN exists for. When accounts are only or primarily doing that, we ban them. We have to, because otherwise such flames will take the site over completely. I've posted about this a lot if you or anyone wants more explanation: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=by:dang%20primarily%20test https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... The bottom line is, please use HN in its intended spirit, which is not this.