[POLITICS] Two Mass Shootings in 15 Hours, and O'Rourke on Trump

[Saelune]

It mostly 'fucks over' people who don't understand how any of this works. ACA was a transitionary thing anyways, or it was supposed to be. It was meant as a compromise with Republicans, but instead is Exhibit A in why compromise with Republicans was a bad idea.

So basically, it was a botched job to begin with. That makes me want the thing repealed more, not less.

And replaced with what? I want something better than ACA, but no Republican wants to give better than the ACA.

Just put their nutsack all the way inside the rubix cube and do something similar to Canada or Denmark(only recently came around to thinking this would be a good idea because you fuckers keep making me research shit. Obviously there'd be issues to work out when applying that to the U.S. that I haven;t fully sused out yet). And if they manage to score a majority in the house and senate, just tell the Republicans to sit and spin.

Oh, you mean do the things Republicans have been spending the last decade+ preventing? You act like we haven't been trying.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

*snips*

Ok, So this wasn't a discussion piece. This was me proving that Obama wasn't given any leeway to make things better or do much of anything with the Republican party. That was everything I posted. How you felt about them or the veracity of Obama's actions are actually irrelevant. It's public fact, admitted by the players, that nothing Obama brought for actual change would be allowed because they didn't want to give him successes.

The fact that ACA got out at all was a miracle. How could he effectively change anything about how Hospitals are fleecing the American people if he had a large part of the government against him every step of the way?

No offense to you, but it's literally like this conversation here. It feels like my points are being argued against because they have a slant of Republican versus Democrat, but only in terms of what actions were taken. I'm not arguing if Obama was right or not, or if even ACA is all it could be. In fact, I rightly called it a Band-aid because as much good as it does (we have at least on Forum Member who is well because of it), it can't do more against a growing tide of unrestricted Hospital Greed. I'm stating that ACA was the only thing that could be done because of how dead set the checks and balances were against him.

I went out to show how dead set it was, by linking and showing hostilities and admitted Republican sentiment. And you're arguing that "He deserved it"

And he deserved it. So it makes sense, really.

Do you get how much of a conversation ender this is? I mean, all it does is show that you're likewise dead set against Obama. To the fact that you'll explain away the deadlock instead of realize that you were arguing that in spite of it, he did nothing substantial (how could he if everyone hindered him has been my point this entire time), but this retroactively ruins a lot of your points as well.

i.e. when you say people are unfairly maligning Trump just because he's Trump, we can just shrug our shoulders and say "Good, he deserves it".

Someone once brought up discussions in good faith. Good faith is important because as intelligent people, we attempt to discuss matters at hand to find solutions.

You can't simultaneously state that a president didn't do enough and then applaud the very people restricting his every movement because they kept from doing anything. The only way this ever works is in a already made-up mind. That's like if a child grew up with separated parents with one of those parents restrained from seeing that child until he grew up to be 18... and that child being upset that the restrained parent wasn't there for his childhood. And then when the parent explains that it was mandated by the courts, that child going "Good! I'm glad they kept you away because you were never there for me!"

It's bad faith. It's 'My perception colors facts as meaningful or meaningless to its discretion'. Discussions are pointless at that point. I honestly, honestly hope one day we can bridge this gap. Maybe it will take time. Maybe it will never come. But hopefully we can continue trying in other conversations.

Until then.

I was reading a book by a US-based healthcare professional (I forget the title but it was something about emergency medicine). Apparently a lot of people who can't get healthcare coverage (or have inadequate coverage) in the US will let their illness get worse and worse until they have to be treated as an emergency, because then they will actually receive treatment (though they still have to pay for it afterwards). Someone with a minor infection will have to wait until they're dying of sepsis to seek treatment. That's indefensible. And not a little crazy.

Sometimes, it's not even that. Sometimes Doctors just straight up don't believe or dismiss groups of people. Like with Blacks [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/upshot/doctors-and-racial-bias-still-a-long-way-to-go.html]

A study published three years earlier in the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine surveyed 543 internal medicine and family physicians who had been presented with vignettes of patients with severe osteoarthritis. The survey asked the doctors about the medical cooperativeness of the patients, and whether they would recommend a total knee replacement.

Even though the descriptions of the cases were identical except for the race of the patients (African-Americans and whites), participants reported that they believed the white patients were being more medically cooperative than the African-American ones. These beliefs did not translate into different treatment recommendations in this study, but they were clearly there.

In 2003, the Institute of Medicine released a landmark report on disparities in health care. The evidence for their existence was enormous. The research available at that time showed that even after controlling for socioeconomic factors, disparities remained.

There's significant literature documenting that African-American patients are treated differently than white patients when it comes to cardiovascular procedures. There were differences in whether they received optimal care with respect to a cancer diagnosis and treatment. African-Americans were less likely to receive appropriate care when they were infected with H.I.V. They were also more likely to die from these illnesses even after adjusting for age, sex, insurance, education and the severity of the disease.

The report cited some systems-level factors that contributed to this problem. Good care may be unavailable in some poor neighborhoods, and easily obtained in others. Differences in insurance access and coverage can also vary by race.

But the report's authors spent much more time on issues at the level of care, in which some physicians treated patients differently based on their race.

Physicians sometimes had a harder time making accurate diagnoses because they seemed to be worse at reading the signals from minority patients, perhaps because of cultural or language barriers. Then there were beliefs that physicians already held about the behavior of minorities. You could call these stereotypes, like believing that minority patients wouldn?t comply with recommended changes.

or with women [https://www.healthline.com/health-news/doctors-missed-heart-attack-signs-in-women#1]

Heart disease is the number one cause of death for American women, killing almost 1 in every 4 women.. But a new study finds patients and even medical providers are missing important heart attack signs in women.

Many recognize that crushing sensation in your chest as a main symptom for a heart attack, but a recent study led by the Yale School of Public Health found that other lesser-known heart attack symptoms ? especially in women ? aren?t being recognized by doctors and patients.

About 90 percent of men and women experience some chest discomfort during an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or heart attack. However, not all AMI events are associated with chest pain.

And these non-chest pain symptoms may be misdiagnosed or ignored if they?re assumed to be something less serious, like acid reflux.

Researchers in the study published this month in the Circulation medical journal looked at 2,009 women and 976 men between the age of 18 and 55 admitted to over 100 hospitals across the United States for AMI.

The researchers conducted interviews to find out which symptoms women had before their hospital visit and what they believed the symptoms were. Researchers also checked to see if participants had prior visits with a healthcare provider.

Almost 62 percent of women presented with more than three non-chest pain symptoms, compared to 54.8 percent of men. Women were more likely than men to report symptoms such as stomach pain, shortness of breath, palpitations in their chest, nausea, and dizziness.

Additionally, 53 percent of women said "their healthcare provider did not think the symptoms were heart-related," compared to only 36.7 percent of men.

Imagine if the number one cause of death for your group is misdiagnosed over fifty percent of the time. That's truly terrifying.

 

[Saelune]

If they voted for Trump, they support Trump. If they aren't doing anything to oppose the others, they are supporting him. You wouldn't give this excuse to Democrats.

What is your defense here? That Trump is a puppet? His actions are Republican and thats what matters. Either way, Republicans are ruining this country.

They recieve beds, soap and supervision at hospitals. And if they dont, that hospital is unethical and needs to be fixed. I blame the Doctors if they actively refuse to help the patients.

Good. A weight carried by many is a lighter load. Helping people is a good thing.

First, could you do me a favor and say that socialism is just people helping each other?

Back on track: there are Republicans who didn't vote for Trump and don't support him. Like these [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_2016_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign].

Trump isn't a puppet, he's just incredibly self-absorbed and wants people to praise him, and is demonstrably willing to follow the lead of others in doing so. More importantly, things are great. Republicans can't be ruining the country if the country isn't being ruined.

Nobody has actively refused to help patients. CBP only holds children as long as it takes to find appropriate care. People on the left oppose any and all facilities that could provide this care. They walk out of work if they find out they're selling the beds you want these children to have. Tell me again who the bad guys are. And again, the children that died were almost entirely released to hospitals when they showed signs of illness.

If everyone has a 10 pound weight, and everyone is helping to carry every weight, everyone is still carrying 10 pounds. When everyone's weight that should be 10 pounds ends up being 100, saying "well, we'll just all share all the loads" isn't a solution.

Are you one of them? I don't think you are one of them. All the Republicans who knew better arent going to be mad at me for agreeing that the Republican party supporting Trump is bad.

Your defense is all over the place. It is not my job to figure out your own argument for you. Either Trump is guilty of being terrible, or he is guilty of doing the bidding of terrible people, same conclusion either way.

Trump has concentration camps that torture, abuse, and kill children, stop defending that as anything but what it is. Trump could stop it, and doesn't, so he is complicit 100%.

 

[tstorm823]

Ok, So this wasn't a discussion piece. This was me proving that Obama wasn't given any leeway to make things better or do much of anything with the Republican party. That was everything I posted. How you felt about them or the veracity of Obama's actions are actually irrelevant. It's public fact, admitted by the players, that nothing Obama brought for actual change would be allowed because they didn't want to give him successes.

Your proof wasn't proof, though. It was bad information. Like, take the bit about stimulus packages. The author telling you the Republicans were obstructionist from day 1 would have you thinking "well, they were for it in 2008 and against it in 2009, all that changed was the president. Except this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008] and this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009] are very different bills. The first one was money given to people to spend. The second was like passing a second budget's discretionary spending for the year, written by Democrats. The author would have you think Obama had a private meeting with Republicans and offered compromise and friendship and they freaked out at that. The truth is, Obama's stimulus was out of Obama's hands before he even took office [http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1877192,00.html#ixzz1Sgy68HdV]. Democratic legislators with effective supermajorities were tossing their favorite pet projects into a big pile and pushing it through. Bush's stimulus was a pure, nonpartisan monetary reaction, Obama's was 5 times the size and completely lost focus of recovering the economy.

"Unfortunately, the House-passed bill is much more like an omnibus bill than a stimulus bill," Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins[footnote]Famously anti-Trump Republican Susan Collins[/footnote] told reporters on Wednesday after meeting with the President. She asked him to force Democrats to remove things from the stimulus like $780 million for pandemic flu preparation and $14 million for cybersecurity. "The White House would have been better off presenting a bill rather than just outlining priorities."

But that may not have been an option. For one thing, congressional staffers may be the only people in America with the dubious skill of being able to move nearly a trillion dollars into the national economy in a hurry. And Hill staffers claim that Obama needed the leaders of the various committees to tell him what the bill required to garner enough votes to pass. Either way, the fact that the bill is the product of free-spending congressional committees is likely to hurt Obama. It is defining his first major effort to fix the economy not as a new way of doing business in Washington but as a massive exercise in more of the same.

Martin Feldstein, the conservative economist who has been advising the White House as well as Hill Democrats and Republicans, was an early advocate for the stimulus but turned on the bill the House produced. He says the Senate bill, unveiled on Tuesday, is equally wasteful. "[Obama's team] turned it over to the congressional staffs," Feldstein says, and the result is that the bill spends like Congress always spends: with an eye to benefiting regional constituents. The problem, he contends, is that the bill's goal is to boost overall national spending, which is a very different thing.

---

This is where Obama's next big test lies: the President may not be able to claim authorship of the bill, but an aggressive editor can change a lot. The question is whether the White House will accept the Hill's arguments for what is needed to pass the bill, effectively letting the Democratic committee leaders price the value of Obama's political capital, or whether the Administration will see for itself what the market will bear.

in case it's unclear, Obama did just let Democratic committee leaders price the value of Obama's political capital, because he let the other Democrats have basically free reign. While he was trying to draw Republicans in with infrastructure spending, the Republicans just wanted him to reign in the Democrats. And while Obama was talking about getting Republican support, they pushed it through. They said there'd be a 48 hour period to review the contents, and then forced the vote the very next day anyway, and Obama figured that since it passed, he didn't have to worry about bipartisanship and he signed it. If that Republican staffer said that actual quote about "if he governs like that...", it was probably with regards to him letting the Democrats in congress do basically whatever they wanted.

Your proof said Obama offered an olive branch and was met with arrows.
Reality says Republicans begged for mercy and were shown indifference.
Can you imagine a reason why the Republicans might have been against Obama after this happened in the first month or two of his presidency? What are you supposed to do when you run into the situation where it's "Well, you lost the election pretty badly, so we don't really need to listen to you anymore".

Really consider the Mitch McConnell quote you had earlier: "Because we thought, correctly, I think, that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan." The Democrats were in a position to do whatever they wanted. What he's saying is to make minor changes to "whatever they want" wasn't worth creating an illusion that it was anything other than "whatever they want". America wouldn't even know a debate was going on if they signed onto everything, because the Republican side of the debate wasn't going to be represented in the legislation anyway.

The ACA had trouble the same way Trump's wall had trouble: neither president had their party united behind their signature policy. But that was the exception, not the rule. Those 2 years belonged to the Democrats... sort of like 2017-2018 belonged to Republicans. It's one of the many ways history is repeating. Because Trump and Obama are actually very similar. The difference being that Obama was handing the government away to one party before even being sworn in, and the unflinching opposition to Trump started before he was even sworn in.

You can't simultaneously state that a president didn't do enough and then applaud the very people restricting his every movement because they kept from doing anything.

Yes I can, under the condition the president was doing the wrong thing. I can say Obama wasn't doing enough on healthcare and then applaud those obstructed him from doing things that makes the situation worse. The status quo of the American healthcare system is bad, and the bulk of the ACA was mandating that status quo by law so that we can't escape it.

Like, you could certainly say "Trump isn't doing enough for the environment" and then applaud the people obstructing his environmental policy because you think his environmental policy is bad. That's not cognitive dissonance, that's just thinking a policy is bad. It's not bad faith at all.

Trump has concentration camps that torture, abuse, and kill children.

This is not only factually untrue, it's morally abhorrent of you to maintain this position. Your rhetoric is the reason why when some in congress are passing humanitarian relief bills to improve the conditions you're upset about, people with your opinion are calling them the "Child Abuse Caucus" [https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/27/politics/border-funding-migrant-crisis-nancy-pelosi-house-senate-bills/index.html]. Because they've convinced themselves that CBP (reminder, the people who also fight human trafficking and do search and rescue operations for migrants) are stormtroopers and childcare facilities are concentration camps.

 

[Saelune]

Trump has concentration camps that torture, abuse, and kill children.

This is not only factually untrue, it's morally abhorrent of you to maintain this position. Your rhetoric is the reason why when some in congress are passing humanitarian relief bills to improve the conditions you're upset about, people with your opinion are calling them the "Child Abuse Caucus" [https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/27/politics/border-funding-migrant-crisis-nancy-pelosi-house-senate-bills/index.html]. Because they've convinced themselves that CBP (reminder, the people who also fight human trafficking and do search and rescue operations for migrants) are stormtroopers and childcare facilities are concentration camps.

It is morally abhorrent of you to defend child murder.

 

[Saelune]

Anyone who defends these camps is pro-Child torture and murder, full stop. Any defense to the contrary is a bunch of lies.

 

[tstorm823]

Anyone who defends these camps is pro-Child torture and murder, full stop. Any defense to the contrary is a bunch of lies.

So you really believe 129 Democrats voted to send emergency humanitarian aid to concentration camps? That's what you think is really going on?

 

[Saelune]

Anyone who defends these camps is pro-Child torture and murder, full stop. Any defense to the contrary is a bunch of lies.

So you really believe 129 Democrats voted to send emergency humanitarian aid to concentration camps? That's what you think is really going on?

You support child torture. Until you stop supporting child torture, I have no more reason to humor you on your intentional attempts to discredit people who oppose child torture.

 

[tstorm823]

You support child torture. Until you stop supporting child torture, I have no more reason to humor you on your intentional attempts to discredit people who oppose child torture.

Every time you say I support child torture, you further discredit yourself.

 

[Saelune]

You support child torture. Until you stop supporting child torture, I have no more reason to humor you on your intentional attempts to discredit people who oppose child torture.

Every time you say I support child torture, you further discredit yourself.

Citation needed.

 

[tstorm823]

Citation needed.

I do not support child torture.[footnote] storm823, T (2019) Post 432, 18.1057276. Escapist Forums[/footnote]

 

[Saelune]

Citation needed.

I do not support child torture.[footnote] storm823, T (2019) Post 432, 18.1057276. Escapist Forums[/footnote]

Was more for that it discredits me, cause the only people it discredits me with are people who are wrong.

Every time you defend these concentration camps as anything but that, you are proving me right.

 

[Schadrach]

Heres the thing, how is the other way any better? How? That's what makes any criticism of ACA not make sense, because the other way is worse, unless you are rich. ACA is the option between 'All' and 'Nothing'.

The ACA was "Let's take the shitty system, make it mandatory, and then tie insurance company's profits to total billing and pretend that somehow that's going to bring prices *down*."

Do you seriously believe that when Dems controlled both houses of congress and the president that the only options were the ACA or do nothing at all?

That's like saying that if you have a cancerous melanoma on your finger that the only options amputating at the shoulder and no treatment at all.

The ACA was a badly executed healthcare reform law, with lots of obvious problems.

 

[Saelune]

Heres the thing, how is the other way any better? How? That's what makes any criticism of ACA not make sense, because the other way is worse, unless you are rich. ACA is the option between 'All' and 'Nothing'.

The ACA was "Let's take the shitty system, make it mandatory, and then tie insurance company's profits to total billing and pretend that somehow that's going to bring prices *down*."

Do you seriously believe that when Dems controlled both houses of congress and the president that the only options were the ACA or do nothing at all?

That's like saying that if you have a cancerous melanoma on your finger that the only options amputating at the shoulder and no treatment at all.

The ACA was a badly executed healthcare reform law, with lots of obvious problems.

The first step of the ACA was to make sure as many people as possible could even get insurance. It was about bringing equality to insurance, something desperately lacking in the previous version.


Part 2 is making sure Republicans dont just ya know, torpedo it the second they can and...oh, look, that is literally what they did. Dems controlling both houses is why ACA got as far as it did. But you just want to blame Democrats for doing something while ignoring Republicans wanting to sabotage it in favor of doing nothing to fix anything.

The problem with ACA was the Republican party.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

That is surely your opinion: and you might be dead wrong.

It's entirely possible that had Reid really gone after Lieberman, Lieberman might have instead sunk any form of healthcare bill. Bearing in mind he retired at the next election, he might have been particularly happy to burn bridges.

Lieberman pulled a Gerald Ford, he "decided" to "retire" because he stood zero chance of reelection. His third-party stunt in 2006 destroyed his approval rating (they dropped from 60% to 38% if I recall correctly), and his Obamacare antics were the final nail in the coffin (they dropped from 38% to 25%). He was so unpopular there were calls for him to resign, and failing that calls to implement state-wide recall in Connecticut to get rid of him before his term was up with CT legislators leading the charge. Instead of circle the drain and have his legacy being someone who lost an election in disgrace, he decided to go out on his own terms and have his legacy be the Senator who destroyed the Democrats' one, best shot at health care reform after losing a primary and throwing a tantrum.

Which is entirely befitting his status as a Republican in everything but two or three wedge issue positions, which kept Democrats tolerant of him during minority years because "any port in a storm". Well, this and being the type of Senator to never leave a lobbyist's dick dry. Lieberman already burned his bridges in 2006, and was simply continuing to do damage by the time the health care debate came up, and thus had no leverage except for his vote; on the other hand, Reid as Senate majority leader had basically carte blanche to destroy his entire legacy and freeze him out to the point a first-termer in a flyover state had more clout.

None of which would have mattered had Reid sacked up and invoked the nuclear option to force radical health care reform, which is what most strategists and advisors were urging.

Why do you think McConnell is so powerful in the Senate? He knows how to use his power as minority/majority leader.

 

[Agema]

...and was simply continuing to do damage by the time the health care debate came up, and thus had no leverage except for his vote...

Which was just about the biggest leverage he could possibly have had. "Ah, he's got no leverage... oh except that ability to press a big red button and fire the nukes..."

One way or another, we don't know what would have happened if Reid had played hardball and we certainly can't just assume it would have worked.

Do you seriously believe that when Dems controlled both houses of congress and the president that the only options were the ACA or do nothing at all?

I would certainly argue that the ACA - or something very similar - was the only practical option available to the Democrats if they wanted to pass universal healthcare coverage.

One could view it in another way, of course, too. That would be to establish the concept of universal healthcare in the minds of Americans: because once established, it would be much harder to remove and much easier to pass incremental changes to move it to a better system.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Heres the thing, how is the other way any better? How? That's what makes any criticism of ACA not make sense, because the other way is worse, unless you are rich. ACA is the option between 'All' and 'Nothing'.

The ACA was "Let's take the shitty system, make it mandatory, and then tie insurance company's profits to total billing and pretend that somehow that's going to bring prices *down*."

Do you seriously believe that when Dems controlled both houses of congress and the president that the only options were the ACA or do nothing at all?

That's like saying that if you have a cancerous melanoma on your finger that the only options amputating at the shoulder and no treatment at all.

The ACA was a badly executed healthcare reform law, with lots of obvious problems.

I hear your words, and you have some salient points.

However, I will counter with this [https://twitter.com/hashtag/HowTheACASavedMyLife?src=hash]. Anything that has people getting their cancer in remission due to it is not badly executed. I work in insurance, I know the headaches. But I also know the benefits. And as someone who has seen people with my own eyes saved, I didn't need these people to chime in.

But I realize other people do, so there you go.

There's many obvious problems with almost everything in our lives. Including government. I take something that has problems given if that even in its badly executed state, lives were still saved. That means there's some legitimate potential there.

 

[Schadrach]

That's like saying that if you have a cancerous melanoma on your finger that the only options amputating at the shoulder and no treatment at all.

Anything that has people getting their cancer in remission due to it is not badly executed.

You realize how ironic that is given the analogy I used, right? Remind me if I get a melanoma like that not to go to a doctor who follows your philosophy, I'd like to keep my arm and just remove the cancerous mole.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

That's like saying that if you have a cancerous melanoma on your finger that the only options amputating at the shoulder and no treatment at all.

Anything that has people getting their cancer in remission due to it is not badly executed.

You realize how ironic that is given the analogy I used, right? Remind me if I get a melanoma like that not to go to a doctor who follows your philosophy, I'd like to keep my arm and just remove the cancerous mole.

That would be the case if I was arguing analogy with analogy. You're speaking in Analogy. I'm quoting people who are stating for a fact they were able to get the help they needed to put their cancer in remission.

Spoiler

PhyllisinVA [https://twitter.com/PhyllisinVA/status/889943134590967808]

Cancerous Donut [https://twitter.com/cancerousdonut/status/880128410843963392]

Mookie Mueller [https://twitter.com/mookiemueller/status/890644949485535232]

Mmirzoian [https://twitter.com/mmirzoian/status/879792781958500353]

Dinas Herbalife [https://twitter.com/Dinas_Herbalife/status/912356780826652678]

Western Bonime [https://twitter.com/WesternBonime/status/880127930751266816]

L Packard [https://twitter.com/lpackard/status/977217659359125504]

Debbellanti [https://twitter.com/debbellanti/status/879851794482044928]

Belethedeheliel [https://twitter.com/belethedheliel/status/879854885176520704]

MancusoNR [https://twitter.com/MancusoNR/status/879459873511047170]

If anyone knows how to embed tweets, please tell me and I'll make it no one has to click them to see the post.

Anyway, that's just some of them. I personally know someone who just graduated College when she found a lump in her breast. ACA paid for that too. And she's alive today due to it.

I mean, we can be witty and trade barbs and all that. But in the end, it's still the fact that you're talking about an analogy and I'm showing actual people who were saved by ACA. Again, it has its problems, but it's saving lives. Full stop. Fix the problems, but do not dare ignore the results.

 

[Silvanus]

That's almost exactly my point. You did the opposite. You took a sentence that said "In the 21st century, those who identify as progressive may do so for a variety of reasons: for example..." and decided that those examples not including what I was saying meant that my explanation of progressivism was wrong. It would be like if it said "reptilia covers many species, for example: snakes, lizard, and crocodiles." and you said "see! Turtles aren't reptiles, they weren't in the example list!"

You took a non-exclusive list of examples as a contradiction to me, and ignored the like 18 times that wikipedia article told you exactly what I told you.

Elsewhere in the article, you'll notice extensive detail which explicitly includes turtles.

Nowhere in the article on "progressivism" is anything that could remotely indicate what you said.

It's almost as if taking single sentences out of context is a recipe for confirmation bias.