"Minority Rule"

[hollodero]

(06-01-2021, 02:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which, again, is a subjective criteria.  What you consider to be such an act may not be what someone else considers such an act.  So who gets to decide when such an act is warranted or not? 

Well, for one, when it's about my own opinion then I decide that. And whether I see such a move as warranted or not is always following subjective criteria, as is everything really. My subjective stance would also be that attacking Canada is bad; and if a democratic minority would use every measure (including ones they wanted to get rid of before) to prevent something like that is fine by me. I'd not call them hypocrites, or inconsistent.

Now sure, Texas republicans did not propose something quite that severe, but they proposed some measures that are imho shocking and blatantly anti-democratic, in both senses of this word. On the other hand, senate republicans used a measure akin to walking out to stop investigating an insurrection attempt. Because they think it might be bad for them politically, if the guy mainly responsible still is the party's monarch and only himself or someone with his full endorsement can ever get nominated for president or for almost any other elected office.

These two situations are so vastly different in their motivations (that assumption is not really subjective anymore), and in my (subjective) sense of morality, that lack of consistency on the democrat's part doesn't seem like a good argument to me.