[JetezLeLogin]

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]

>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]

If you value the truth why did you exclude so much of it?

[BeetleB]

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.)

[xrd]

Can you share where the fact that Democrats didn't support it is documented? I'm open to hearing this is the truth, and I'm also wanting to disprove my assumption this is a Republican talking point. I will definitely read what you provide.

[BeetleB]

>Can you share where the fact that Democrats didn't support it is documented?

It's right in my original comment, with the link:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20355418