>Would you mind answering the question, please, instead of embarking on a side quest?

Funny you're accusing me of derailing the topic when in my initial comment I specifically mentioned I wasn't interested in arguing over the merits of those reforms

>[...] Even if you're sympathetic to those reforms [...]

And for the record, in case you wanted to interpret my refusal of discussing that topic as some sort of sign I'm against them: I'm not. I just believe the topic has been discussed to death and there's no point relitigating it.

▲

otterley 2 days ago | parent [-]

Then why are you even participating in the discussion? You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Don’t enter a ring if you can’t take a punch.

▲

gruez 2 days ago | parent [-]

So if you want to derail the discussion it's "Don’t enter a ring if you can’t take a punch", but when I do it, it's "... instead of embarking on a side quest"?

	▲	otterley 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Do you ever answer questions directly? Feels like you’re not engaging in good faith, but would rather argue for arguments’ sake and try to “win” through any means other than substantive contribution. To ask why Republicans won’t participate in passing these reforms is not “derailing” the conversation. It speaks to the very heart of the problem, because if they would, we wouldn’t be in this quagmire. The public has made it pretty clear that they don’t like the status quo about how ICE has been operating lately.