5 ms·
It does indicate a consensus is not met, and merely that; the GP claimed the this lack of specific consensus on action is actually a form of broad consensus on
by intopieces 6y ago
It does indicate a consensus is not met, and merely that; the GP claimed the this lack of specific consensus on action is actually a form of broad consensus on inaction, a leap in logic that is unfounded because it ignores the political game theory that is employed in obstructionism.
It also ignores the fundamental brokenness of the system through a sort of circular logic: things didn’t change since they didn’t need to be changed.
- nostromo 6y agoYou're putting words in my mouth.
- intopieces 6y agoThat was not my intention. Could you clarify how your statement: > If congress doesn't change something, then that means they have determined no change is necessary. Is not accurately reworded as: >this lack of specific consensus on action is actually a form of broad consensus on inaction