Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
If the best you can get is 40%, then maybe you shouldn't touch it at all.
|
Right. Instead we should just linger on with uncontrollable growth in health care costs and leave over 30 million people uninsured, because polls don't get to an unspecified level of support. I don't know why you keep going down this path, given that you have admitted that no matter how high public support got, you wouldn't support the bill. Quite clearly, you aren't interested in what the public says on the issue, you are just saying you do because you think the numbers support your position.
Quote:
|
It's not inconsistent, but it is irrelevant.
|
How is it consistent?
Quote:
|
This is bizarre line of thinking. I don't hold public office.
|
Would your reasoning change if you did? Why?
Quote:
|
Because people still don't want it, and basing a decision this important on mere politics is a mistake. But I think the political damage has mostly already been done.
|
Isn't basing a decision on poll numbers "basing a decision on politics?" If you think it is right to pass the bill, shouldn't you then pass it regardless of the politics? This seems contrary to your entire premise. And if you think politics should play a role, but the "damage has mostly already been done," then what is the political harm of passing it anyways? Shouldn't that lead a Congressperson even more in the direction of doing what they think is right, regardless of the polls?