This is wrong. There is no age cohort in which “most” people have cut the cord. In households headed by people aged 18-34, the most aggressive estimates are that 35% do not have cable/satellite. More conservative estimates are 20% or so. Remember, that’s the youngest demo.

The federal debt has increased every moment of every day in our history, with very few examples. Programs are cut all the time. Health care has always been a shambles.

Sure you can. Or else our emails would occasionally go to the wrong recipient, like postal mail.

Sure it is. Or else all of our calculators would periodically make errors in addition and subtraction.

Ooh, a kindred spirit! I tend to use comments sections as practice, too. I’m sure that’s why people think I’m an asshole. (I hope that’s why).

More than fair. In fact, you and I agree on the larger issue. The first two paragraphs of your initial reply are pretty much my thoughts, as far as I’ve cared to develop them.

Fair enough. That takes care of the first word of my reply.

I’m not equating, and you probably know that. I’m drawing an analogy, and a pretty clear one. I’m explaining that the reasoning behind the ban shouldn’t be ignored because people might be out of work.

But you’re ignoring the nature of the reaction.

They’ll find work.

No, your argument is a literal non-sequitur. “We have to do it to every franchise...” does not follow from “We have to do it for one franchise.”

And bantamweights would likely die against a heavyweight.

Lots of people have died from punches.

The problem with legal writing isn’t the jargon. There actually isn’t too much jargon, and most of it is in Latin or Norman French, which is kind of cool and rarely used outside of school and maybe appellate briefs.

You’re arguing for having fewer entertaining and meaningful entrants? In the first female Rumble?

You’re welcome!

You’re conflating too many things. And you’re wrong on your legal assertions.

This is a perfectly reasonable rationale. But realize what you’re saying now — you disagree with them for both moral and political reasons. That is, you think they should have voted against the resolution because it is the right thing to do AND voting for it is against their principles, which is a bad political…

Yes I would. Which goes back to my original response to you — they are not legislating DACA in a vacuum. They’re doing it in context of a shutdown, as a minority, in a midterm year, against this President, while also legislating other things.

You say cynical, I say adept at language.