Nancy Pelosi is a felon.

[billvon]

You do know that a bill has to actually pass before it can harm or benefit anyone, right?

Of course. That was an example of the GOP out to harm someone. It is fortunate that they are now unable to do so. It has always been their goal; back in 2012, the Republican National Convention approved a platform that asserts the right of the federal government to deny legal recognition to same-sex marriages - and they endorsed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It was a successful platform until the Supreme Court put an end to their attempts to harm gay Americans in 2015.

And even your own quote said that it wasn't a policy of all Republicans. So not representative and not actually doing any harm.

Except it was their stated policy going back at least 8 years.

Sucks when they actually say that stuff out loud, eh?

Does it harm someone?

Of course. It harms the families of soldiers who don't get schools for their children. But who cares about them, eh? Certainly not the GOP.

 

[iceaura]

Does it harm someone?

Didn't want this one to slide away easily:

Can you name a Republican policy that does not directly harm US citizens? (An actual one, mind - not a rhetorical claim.).

When it first crossed the field of view, I thought that an innuendo of a mildly amusing exaggeration. The longer it hangs in the air, the less of an exaggeration it seems to be.
The Republican Party has little in the way of policies these days - tax cuts for the wealthy being the only consistent item on the publicly admitted Republican agenda - but to the extent that any can be identified in operation they seem directly harmful to the American citizenry.

All of them.

That fits the description of the R Party as an organized criminal capitalist enterprise, i.e. fascist, of course; but it startles nevertheless, at least me.

 

[Vociferous]

Of course. That was an example of the GOP out to harm someone. It is fortunate that they are now unable to do so. It has always been their goal; back in 2012, the Republican National Convention approved a platform that asserts the right of the federal government to deny legal recognition to same-sex marriages - and they endorsed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It was a successful platform until the Supreme Court put an end to their attempts to harm gay Americans in 2015.

So moving your own goalposts, from "directly harm" to "out to harm". In 2008, Obama was against gay marriage too.
Marriage became licensed by the state as a racist means to stop miscegenation, by Democrats. And if that had never occurred, there would have never been any dispute over gay marriage. Which is why most rational people would prefer the state only issue civil unions, as a matter of contractual law between any two consenting adults for any reason, and without any moral imprimatur.

Except it was their stated policy going back at least 8 years.

Sucks when they actually say that stuff out loud, eh?

Again, Obama was against gay marriage in 2008. Republicans have mostly been against the slippery slope of violating conscience and religious liberty as a result, since the Supreme Court ruling.

Of course. It harms the families of soldiers who don't get schools for their children. But who cares about them, eh? Certainly not the GOP.

Even though there's only something like 47 such military base schools in only 7 states, and the rest go to the local public schools?