The good news is that Oregon, according to the article, also gave up on its climate change bill. This means that many of those coastal buildings might already be under water by time a tsunami strikes, avoiding the problem.
Umm... no. They returned in time to continue the session. It didn't pass because there weren't enough Democrats who supported the bill.
>The move seemingly ended a fight that has strained relationships in the statehouse since the first days of the session. HB 2020 would create an overall cap on Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions and would charge companies for their pollution.
>But the bill saw backlash from industries that felt added costs would put them at a competitive disadvantage, and from citizens who chafed at an expected increase in gas and energy costs. Ultimately the pushback was apparently enough to convince three Democratic senators to oppose the bill, meaning it would likely not have enough votes to pass.
https://www.opb.org/news/article/as-republicans-return-senat...
Edit: Probably violating HN guidelines, but: I provided a reliable source, yet am being heavily downvoted without any counterpoint or counterreference. What's the issue with my comment?
It's the same reason threatening to shut down the government is becoming more common, it makes you look tough and uncompromising in the face of what your base considers to be evil.
It's not an either or. The bill may have been one of the motives to flee. The reality in the end, though, was that their tactic didn't defeat the bill. They came back before the end of the session. There was a quorum, but the Democrats realized they didn't have enough votes.
My point is that claiming there wasn't a quorum, given how productive the end of the session was[0], is simply false.
[0]They passed 100 bills in the last two days.
https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-legislative-session-...
Does not bode well for the future of our democracy. I guess we will see what the future holds.
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.
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.
>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.)
It's right in my original comment, with the link:
We have no way of knowing if the bill had enough votes to pass because the GOP senators never permitted it to come up for a vote. Anything beyond that is speculation.
1) This conversation veered into politics, making it more divisive.
2) Your response "Umm... no" to me reads as snarky even though you provided substantive, new to me information in your comment with a source.
HN asks that in comments:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
In short, it seems to me that you veered towards snark when HN asks that we veer towards civility, especially about divisive topics.
>Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Regarding "Umm... no", I suppose some people see it as snarky. I didn't intend for it to be that way, and at least in real world situations, people don't appreciate it if I start the conversation with "You're wrong!". The "umm... no" was meant as a way to lighten the effect of pointing out that someone was wrong.
Regarding the conversation veering into politics, I'd buy that argument if the parents were downvoted as well, which is clearly not the case. I'm not the one who brought politics into this thread.
At the same time, consider the very same guideline you pointed out:
>Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Yet multiple comments beneath mine are accusing me of being both partisan and disingenuous. Not exactly thoughtful, and as of the time of me writing this comment, I am the only one providing actual sources/references. Who else is being "substantive" here?
As far as HN guidelines go, this is part of one of them:
>Assume good faith.
I find it hard to square comments accusing me of being disingenuous and partisan with that.
And obviously, there is:
>When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
At the end of the day, I'm more inclined to think that the evidence points more to HN readers of my comment as being partisan. I merely posted a fact and backed it up - it was not an opinion. And it certainly was not an accusation. And in a later comment, I even acknowledged the nuances - yes, the senators were possibly motivated by preventing quorum - not something. Despite stating that, I'm still accused of being disingenuous by omission. What am I omitting?
(Mostly replying to you as you actually tried to provide a helpful response, and if I respond to everyone individually, I'll hit the post limit very soon).
I hear you. It sounds like you are engaged in the conversation in good faith and are trying to understand why your communications are being downvoted while others are not.
I can't say for certain why your comments have been downvoted while others haven't, but I can make a conjecture.
Peter Drucker said "communication is perception." That has stuck with me.
Why might this matter here? If an initial comment you made rubbed anyone the wrong way, then the rest of your comments in this thread are likely to be perceived negatively.
This could be compounded by political preferences and group psychology.
Again, I'm just making a conjecture here as I didn't want to leave you hanging.
I drew on Drucker's thoughts on communications from his original 1973 publication of Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, and Practices. I uploaded the relevant pages to an Imgur album if you would like to read them.