@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
You are laboring to draw a distinction between two processes that are more similar than different, but it is, in any case, of little relevance to the point I raised with you.
Not even slightly. You haven't even began to explain their similarities in the overall process. I've outlined several important ways they are different. No laboring on my end except in trying to understand your inability to comprehend this.
Quote:
Baldimo provided a link that reveals you are factually wrong maporche about the Republican amendments. There...now we've both accused each other of being factually wrong about a subject that is far more about opinion than facts.
It is factually true that a hundred or so amendments were adopted. Fact. Another fact is that over 800 were considered. Fact.
Quote:The comparison of the process in question and that which led to the passage of the ACA was offered not to debate their equivalency but to acknowledge that your concern over the GOP process is legitimate, if based on ideology and the outcome which you anticipate with concern, however the acknowledgment was in the context of arguing that your implication that there is significance in the fact that the legislators in question are all white males, regardless of what their ideology may be, is at best specious.
I'm going to need this run on sentence fixed before I can understand your full point.
Quote:
You seem to be arguing (it's tough to tell for sure because you have not yet responded to my specific post) that because they are all white, male and rich (the latter a characteristic you added to your original profile) it is reasonable to assume they are currently acting either without any input from people who do not meet their physical and economic profile, or with complete disregard for it.
Not because they are white. They ARE going to vote without input from people who don't meet their demographics. Possibly with complete disregard. Again, Obamacare had over a year of debate and hundreds of town halls across the country.
Quote:
Maybe you have some way of being certain they've not solicited or received any such input, in which case I hope you will share it, or maybe you know something about rich white men that allows for the assumption that these characteristics incline them to be exclusive and dismissive of any input, and here again, if you do, I hope you will share it. Following that, I would ask you to explain how and why rich white men who happen to be Democrats are not similarly inclined.
If they've been conducting town halls nationwide, meeting with industry leaders, doctors, business groups, or the like...then I've missed it. If fact I've been noticing that most senators are purposefully avoiding their constituents. The leadership especially.
Quote:You have made a point of identifying these Republicans as rich, white, men and it's perfectly clear that it wasn't just to provide us with some interesting but essentially meaningless background information. You subsequently indicated you don't believe rich white men are incapable of drafting effective legislation (which would have been a whooper of a claim had you made it) but there was, nevertheless, a reason you felt the need to stress their physical and economic characteristics. If you would prefer to argue about the equivalency of examples of Democrat and Republican legislative process and avoid providing a clearer answer to my question, I think I can understand why, but I'm not interested in a discussion of the ACA, the law or the process by which it was passed.
Please reread my post about the 13 rich white men comment. It 100% sums up my purpose in posting those qualifiers. I'm not going to talk anymore beyond that.
And yes, I've been arguing about the democratic and republican legislative process this entire time!!! The 13 white men comment was on the context of that overall point.
Welcome.
