Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by AmericanChopper 1420 days ago
It had well over a super majority in both houses, that is substantial bipartisan support.

If the definition of “left” isn’t “mainstream left wing politics”, and is instead “a small collection of politicians chosen by dfxm12”, then the word may as well not have a meaning.
2 comments
dfxm12 1420 days ago
It had well over a super majority in both houses, that is substantial bipartisan support.

I'll add that super majority doesn't mean much in terms of "bi partisan support", when a single party (the republicans) nearly had a super majority of the house alone. Even in the senate, the Republicans pretty much all voted the same way while the Democrats split. It's almost as if there was some sub group of politicians for whom this issue was not popular and split from the mainstream, off to one side (plus the regular Americans who did not support the war).

If the definition of “left” isn’t “mainstream left wing politics”

"Left" or "left wing" is by definition not "mainstream".

and is instead “a small collection of politicians chosen by dfxm12”, then the word may as well not have a meaning.

Do please try to post in good faith.

link
AmericanChopper 1419 days ago
> I'll add that super majority doesn't mean much in terms of "bi partisan support", when a single party (the republicans) nearly had a super majority of the house alone.

In 2002 the republicans has a 14 seat majority in the house, and no majority in the senate with only 49 seats. The history re-writing going on here is pretty extreme.

link
ImPostingOnHN 1416 days ago
> It had well over a super majority in both houses, that is substantial bipartisan support.

maybe, but that doesn't tell you as much as this (particularly since it seeks to obscure the actual numbers):

> Of the Democrats, only 39% representatives and 29 out of 50 senators voted for it. Among the bloc who voted against the Iraq Resolution were politicians like Bernie Sanders, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Peter DeFazio, et al., who at the time, represented even your definition of "left wing".

as for your assertion that your definition of "left wing" is better: such a bare assertion will not be taken at face value

link