[quote=@scribz] Woah, no. I'm under no obligation to do [i]anything[/i]. I'm asking political questions to someone who historically on this website wants to engage in political issues. I've not seen him deviate from the views of the republican party once in the 7 years I've been here (unless the democrats are also guilty, then the problem can be addressed) when I've changed my views countless times. I wanted to see if that applies even when a majority of conservative voters are for the bill and so it runs clearly against democracy, and political process. It does, and he doesn't appreciate me asking those questions. I voted to remain in the UK. But I the recognize the decision to leave as the valid one. [/quote] Hmm? I'm routinely opposed to the republican party. Pro-choice (for governmental purposes at least), pro-marriage-equality, disliked pretty much all of the presidential candidates I've ever seen... Though I'll probably wind up voting for this one, if only as an anti-clinton vote. Nearest you can label me is libertarian, but with realist foreign policy (which necessitates some domestic compromise). But it's interesting.... That analysis you gave of me is sort of exactly what the spin-doctors want you to perceive. A story pops up in the press and gets written as 'GOP wants to throw all abortion-havers into a dungeon forever,' and I'll go in and read the actual bill and post what the bill actually says (like, idunno, 7-year-old boys who want an abortion need a note from their mother), and why I don't think that's such a bad idea. But that only registers as "Look at MDK, defending the GOP again, what a tool." Mind you, that's a brilliant play by the architects of spin, and I can appreciate that. But it [i]is[/i] a bit frustrating to have my intellectual contributions over a seven-year period of observation reduced to a single inaccurate bullet point. [i]now then[/i] Brexit and nfl-guncontrol are two very different beasts. The EU referendum was a popular vote, but congressional voting in the US is not. (Nor, I believe, are parliamentary proceedings in the UK). We are a representative democracy; our duly elected representatives in congress are tasked not with precisely mirroring the momentary and fluctuating will of the people (else ACA would be long dead), but rather with representing the best interests of the constituency. Usually when 'the will of the people' conflicts with the representative's notion of 'their best interest,' that congressman will abstain from the vote. In this case, operating procedures are being utilized to prevent a vote altogether, on the grounds that political pressure from constituents of all affiliations would compel the congress to pass a bad bill. This is the best example in recent memory of why we are a representative democracy in the first place, rather than pure democracy. The stupid bill will not pass, because it will not come to a vote. It should never have been proposed in the first place, but here we are, and thank god someone had the good sense to step on its throat and kill it.