That's all good and fine. To an extent. But only to an extent.
Where does it state that you have to keep talking until you reach consensus? That there's no principle or belief that you won't negotiate or deny for the purpose of comity?
I would posit that the idea that people today are really worse than people 30 ears ago, 100 years ago, whatever - is a false one. They're just people. And not all of them are acting in good faith. What then?
It is not wrong to state the truth.
Just yesterday, in the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Trump (as current facts indicate occurred), Republicans immediately went on the offensive to claim the problem is that Democrats are pointing out how unfit Trump is, not that he is unfit. Stating facts cannot be the problem.
Using violence to resolve a political question? Yes, that is wrong as long as there are other ways to resolve it. On that we are in agreement.
But the solution cannot be that we avoid hard truths for the sake of conversation and so we can "talk to one another".
The other day, part of the Republican cult met with leaders of Nato and told them not to take Trump literally, but to take him seriously.
Again, the solution is that everyone else in a discussion is supposed to take one party seriously, but not literally?
You don't think that's the problem?
If you cannot be allowed to judge a person by their words or actions, what exactly are you allowed to use?
Their television ratings?
You have a 30 time convicted felon who has been found guilty of sexual assault, and fraud - who has other felony charges pending - yet somehow - we've now learned from the Republican majority that was placed on the Supreme Court, that we are not electing a President, but rather - an Emperor, whose actions - no matter how erratic or self serving- is above approach - with absolute immunity as long as he can tenuously claim he is doing it for the country. When did we agree with that?
But as long as folks like Mr Kenney, local Republicans like Youngkin, Wittman, etc. all look the other way, and as long as folks such as yourselves are unwilling to draw a line in the sand and say "enough" - as you have found no principle of governance you will not overlook for the sake of "conversation" this will not only continue, but worsen. Conversation without honesty is not only disingenuous, it is harmful.
If there is a principle that you hold so dear that you will not forsake it in the name of "comity" you've hidden it very well.
I have no doubt you mean well. Talk without principle or point beyond just talking to say you did, cannot be the solution. There's got to be something you believe in beyond that.
That's all good and fine. To an extent. But only to an extent.
Where does it state that you have to keep talking until you reach consensus? That there's no principle or belief that you won't negotiate or deny for the purpose of comity?
I would posit that the idea that people today are really worse than people 30 ears ago, 100 years ago, whatever - is a false one. They're just people. And not all of them are acting in good faith. What then?
It is not wrong to state the truth.
Just yesterday, in the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Trump (as current facts indicate occurred), Republicans immediately went on the offensive to claim the problem is that Democrats are pointing out how unfit Trump is, not that he is unfit. Stating facts cannot be the problem.
Using violence to resolve a political question? Yes, that is wrong as long as there are other ways to resolve it. On that we are in agreement.
But the solution cannot be that we avoid hard truths for the sake of conversation and so we can "talk to one another".
The other day, part of the Republican cult met with leaders of Nato and told them not to take Trump literally, but to take him seriously.
Again, the solution is that everyone else in a discussion is supposed to take one party seriously, but not literally?
You don't think that's the problem?
If you cannot be allowed to judge a person by their words or actions, what exactly are you allowed to use?
Their television ratings?
You have a 30 time convicted felon who has been found guilty of sexual assault, and fraud - who has other felony charges pending - yet somehow - we've now learned from the Republican majority that was placed on the Supreme Court, that we are not electing a President, but rather - an Emperor, whose actions - no matter how erratic or self serving- is above approach - with absolute immunity as long as he can tenuously claim he is doing it for the country. When did we agree with that?
But as long as folks like Mr Kenney, local Republicans like Youngkin, Wittman, etc. all look the other way, and as long as folks such as yourselves are unwilling to draw a line in the sand and say "enough" - as you have found no principle of governance you will not overlook for the sake of "conversation" this will not only continue, but worsen. Conversation without honesty is not only disingenuous, it is harmful.
If there is a principle that you hold so dear that you will not forsake it in the name of "comity" you've hidden it very well.
I have no doubt you mean well. Talk without principle or point beyond just talking to say you did, cannot be the solution. There's got to be something you believe in beyond that.