Replies

This place has been tense lately due to this healthcare debate. I myself was torn, and I certainly don't think it's a cut and dried issue whether it would have been better to let this bill fail (which I believe) or instead to desire its passage (which I initially believed).

Consequently, there have been some very opinionated comments by supporters of both sides of the discussion.

I'm convinced that it's a very valid question to ask which outcome regarding this bill is actually better or worse. The President was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't.

The way that Speaker Paul Ryan handled this bill, both in its inception and its rollout, was shameful, because it didn't even have the veneer of what was talked about during the election cycle, and what the voters who elected President Trump wanted (patient-centric, free-market, repeal Obamacare, etc.).

It really couldn't have been a more profound act of betrayal by the GOPe, as embodied by the Speaker of the House. Either Paul Ryan was being deliberately malicious towards the President, or he is so deeply indoctrinated into the corrupt Uniparty Swamp as to be utterly incorrigible.

I believe it betrays Paul Ryan's barely concealed intent to sabotage this Presidency. Ryan is, essentially, part and parcel of the Establishment which sought with all of its might to prevent a Trump Presidency, and his work in undermining the President has just begun, I fear. That's why I believe he should be replaced forthwith.

But I digress. With respect to your rebuke of the tone of my post, your point is well taken.

I hope that my point can still be heard, however poorly it was conveyed in my initial post. Let me restate:

I believe decent and Constitutionally knowledgeable American patriots of good conscience can come down on either side of the question which so recently has occupied our collective attention: tha AHCA.

I also maintain that disparaging someone on the opposite side of the issue as knowing nothing about Constitutional authority, in this particular case, is somewhat gratuitous.

It's quite possible, as annoying as the case may be,that passing this law might have been better for the People, if not the President, than not passing it.

It's not as cut and dried as everyone thinks, IMHO, and therefore the acrimony against those who have a different opinion on what should have happened, should probably be reduced by both sides.

I find this whole series of events educational, challenging, disturbing, confusing, infuriating, and about a dozen other adjectives, mostly negative ones.

Having said all that, my criticism was a response to what you posted—which was somewhat of an insult to the patriotism of those on the other side of this debate—people whose knowledge of Constitutional authority is quite adequate.

As I suggested, I'm convinced there's room for legitimate disagreement on what would have been best for the People and this Presidency, and the realization that those two ideals could be at odds in this case is problematic...