3 ms·

Defensively upvoted BeetleB because the comment is literally and factually true and I see nothing disingenuous or partisan about it, nor would I venture into su

Defensively upvoted BeetleB because the comment is literally and factually true and I see nothing disingenuous or partisan about it, nor would I venture into such intent-divining, mind-reading territory. You're correct about the intent of the Republican embargo, but your point is about what would have happened. BeetleB's comment is about what did happen. If we're all champions of rational discussion on HN then surely there's room for that much subtlety, not to mention plain facts. Not enough Democrats supported the bill; they declared it dead; Republicans decided in light of that, they could stop their stonewalling (and in my opinion, dereliction of duty). It's a technicality, and it's technically true.

craigyk 7y ago
BeetleB is being disingenuous, the GOP fled and would not return until they were sure the bill died. There were other things that needed voting on- the climate bill was publicly dropped so that the missing senators would come back and they could vote on other issues. Putting the blame for this bill failing to pass on anyone but these senators is disingenuous by omission.
- JetezLeLogin 7y ago
  It's all part of the story. Talking about the Niña doesn't mean I absolve the Pinta and the Santa María from whatever Columbus' expedition did. It does probably mean I'm talking about the Niña at the moment and am not terribly interested in the blame game. (No one else wants a time-out from that tedium huh?) OK well if we're going to play the blame game, and we don't like disingenuously omitting things, then why shield from blame those 3 Democrats who switched sides? Why shield from blame the leadership who could've stayed the course, maybe found a way to wait the Republicans out forever? (It's not like "rules" or "procedures" apply anymore, so why not?) You never know, someone you claim is a Republican partisan could just be the most disappointed liberal you ever saw, fed up with how weak and ineffectual their supposed representatives in various bodies are, even despite having majorities in those bodies. Am I automatically a Republican for saying something like "Obama isn't liberal enough?" Of course not. And those who claim that criticism of the leadership is disloyal/traitorous share that trait with fascists.
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    >You never know, someone you claim is a Republican partisan could just be the most disappointed liberal you ever saw, fed up with how weak and ineffectual their supposed representatives in various bodies are, even despite having majorities in those bodies. Or, you know, just someone who values the truth. :-) There doesn't have to be a complex narrative behind my actions, and nor do I have to be on either the Democrats or the Republican's side to point out when a statement is false.
    - rootusrootus 7y ago
      If you value the truth why did you exclude so much of it?
      - BeetleB 7y ago
        Here is the first comment in the thread: >The good news is that Oregon, according to the article, also gave up on its climate change bill. Here is the next: >"Gave up" in this case consists of a certain party's legislative membership fleeing to Idaho to deny quorum. And then came mine: >Umm... no. They returned in time to continue the session. It didn't pass because there weren't enough Democrats who supported the bill. And then eventually you ask me: >If you value the truth why did you exclude so much of it? The first two comments were clearly omitting an important fact, so I contributed to the conversation by providing excluded truths. Furthermore, my comment implicitly acknowledged that the senators ran away to prevent a quorum, by acknowledging that they returned. In case there was any doubt, I made that explicit in my next comment. Not to mention that my (initial) comment contained more information, and actually provided a source. And in all these comments criticizing mine, no one else has even bothered to provide a source to support their claims. So what did I exclude, and why am I the one being asked? Why not hold the original commenters to the same standard? As I said, at the end of the legislative session: 1. There was quorum. 2. No one was stalling the bill at that point. 3. The Democrats chose not to have a vote on the bill because of actions by their own party members. Whatever tactics the Republicans initially used to stall the bill, at the end the Democrats contributed to the failure in getting the bill passed. (For anyone still reading, and confused about my original comments - their scores were well into the negatives, although they no longer are so.)
rootusrootus 7y ago
Hell, if we are interested in being absolutely, technically correct, the GOP senators stated bluntly that they would never return so long as the bill might pass, and one of them dared the state police to try and find him, implying he would fire upon them if they showed up. We have no way of knowing if the bill had enough votes to pass because the GOP senators never permitted it to come up for a vote. Anything beyond that is speculation.

craigyk 7y ago

BeetleB is being disingenuous, the GOP fled and would not return until they were sure the bill died. There were other things that needed voting on- the climate bill was publicly dropped so that the missing senators would come back and they could vote on other issues. Putting the blame for this bill failing to pass on anyone but these senators is disingenuous by omission.

JetezLeLogin 7y ago
It's all part of the story. Talking about the Niña doesn't mean I absolve the Pinta and the Santa María from whatever Columbus' expedition did. It does probably mean I'm talking about the Niña at the moment and am not terribly interested in the blame game. (No one else wants a time-out from that tedium huh?) OK well if we're going to play the blame game, and we don't like disingenuously omitting things, then why shield from blame those 3 Democrats who switched sides? Why shield from blame the leadership who could've stayed the course, maybe found a way to wait the Republicans out forever? (It's not like "rules" or "procedures" apply anymore, so why not?) You never know, someone you claim is a Republican partisan could just be the most disappointed liberal you ever saw, fed up with how weak and ineffectual their supposed representatives in various bodies are, even despite having majorities in those bodies. Am I automatically a Republican for saying something like "Obama isn't liberal enough?" Of course not. And those who claim that criticism of the leadership is disloyal/traitorous share that trait with fascists.
- BeetleB 7y ago
  >You never know, someone you claim is a Republican partisan could just be the most disappointed liberal you ever saw, fed up with how weak and ineffectual their supposed representatives in various bodies are, even despite having majorities in those bodies. Or, you know, just someone who values the truth. :-) There doesn't have to be a complex narrative behind my actions, and nor do I have to be on either the Democrats or the Republican's side to point out when a statement is false.
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    If you value the truth why did you exclude so much of it?
    - BeetleB 7y ago
      Here is the first comment in the thread: >The good news is that Oregon, according to the article, also gave up on its climate change bill. Here is the next: >"Gave up" in this case consists of a certain party's legislative membership fleeing to Idaho to deny quorum. And then came mine: >Umm... no. They returned in time to continue the session. It didn't pass because there weren't enough Democrats who supported the bill. And then eventually you ask me: >If you value the truth why did you exclude so much of it? The first two comments were clearly omitting an important fact, so I contributed to the conversation by providing excluded truths. Furthermore, my comment implicitly acknowledged that the senators ran away to prevent a quorum, by acknowledging that they returned. In case there was any doubt, I made that explicit in my next comment. Not to mention that my (initial) comment contained more information, and actually provided a source. And in all these comments criticizing mine, no one else has even bothered to provide a source to support their claims. So what did I exclude, and why am I the one being asked? Why not hold the original commenters to the same standard? As I said, at the end of the legislative session: 1. There was quorum. 2. No one was stalling the bill at that point. 3. The Democrats chose not to have a vote on the bill because of actions by their own party members. Whatever tactics the Republicans initially used to stall the bill, at the end the Democrats contributed to the failure in getting the bill passed. (For anyone still reading, and confused about my original comments - their scores were well into the negatives, although they no longer are so.)

rootusrootus 7y ago

Hell, if we are interested in being absolutely, technically correct, the GOP senators stated bluntly that they would never return so long as the bill might pass, and one of them dared the state police to try and find him, implying he would fire upon them if they showed up. We have no way of knowing if the bill had enough votes to pass because the GOP senators never permitted it to come up for a vote. Anything beyond that is speculation.