A common tactic when one side tries to pass a bill is to put forward a separate bill with the same stated objective that guts all of the meaningful parts of the bill. It isn't put forward because it is a solution to anything, it is put forward to serve as a smokescreen for a lack of support of the first bill and attempt to divide Congress. As such, typically these bills are voted along party lines for largely political reasons. It isn't a criticism of the bill itself (although often they will also be loaded with poison pills so sometimes it is), it is a criticism of the "Do nothing but keep up the appearance of doing something" tactic of government.

So……you didn’t actually read what I said? Or are you intentionally ignoring my points? Or do you simply not understand them?

My argument has been pretty straight forward so I thought a millionaire scientist who previously told me I lack reading comprehension would have no problem understating it.

Seriously, which part of my post is so confusing to you? I have now twice said that the commission itself is not an issue and yet you continue to respond with “why are liberals afraid of data”.

You talk about compromise but this is a prime example of why that is so difficult, you are straight up ignoring every single point I’ve made and just repeating the same line as if it’s a “gotcha” moment.

Trump has said that Taiwan needs to pay the United States for its military assistance. Does this mean he will let the Chinese take Taiwan if they try? This is important bc Taiwan controls a large portion of the worlds computer chip market.  If they lost sovereignty through an invasion, then the Chinese would jack up the prices for these chips and have the world in its hand.  

This. This is what politics are, a bunch of posturing, making it seem like you are compromising while giving up nothing and expecting the world. Whether Democrat or Republican, Left or Right, Social or Fiscal. Each side makes itself seem like the reasonable one willing to compromise and address problems while doing nothing at all.

Sometimes this is relatively reasonable, believing that there are different ways to address the problem and thinking it would exacerbate things, but most of the time it is merely because you disagree with it not from any actual base point, but rather it wasn't your side's idea or it is perceived to infringe upon one of your sides ideas (even if it doesn't, getting reelected is more important than being right)

I understand perfectly.  Too bad you don't.  

There was a reason it was voted down.  But hey, whatever floats your boat.  

I’d say that the US is finally reaching Idiocracy levels, but Hulk Hogan is a bigger idiot than Camacho.

Maybe liberals are just done wondering.

If people want more genuine data collecting, that's great. 

But it's not always done with the intent of collecting more data and following it up with good faith policy.  

Ok, so you understand my points, just ignoring them. Got it!

Yes, the bill was voted down, because it was insufficient and not a good faith counter but you probably still think it’s because I’m just a dumb liberal who’s scared of data.

1

I think many liberals, especially the elected ones, are scared of data.  We wouldn't want facts disrupting narratives.  

Call me crazy, but I'm with Einstien.  Granted I think most all scientists beleive in problem characterization with laser execution.

Either way I can save us both the time and watch CNN in the morning to get your opinion on the next topic.  

Edit

I'll close by pointing out that if liberals were half as smart as they think they are, they wouldn't be struggling to beat Trump....  again.