cheap disulfiram An amazing thing happened at Tuesday night’s CNN debate over the future of Obamacare.
Nothing.
CNN had promised the kind of fireworks our president packs with every Twitter strike. And it featured a heavyweight bout: Bernie Sanders vs. Ted Cruz. The outliers in a race between presidential candidates who do not suffer independent thought gladly. Surely, given the wind-baggery of the contenders, this would showcase the new breed of debate as envisioned in a dysTrumpian future.
Instead, we heard something profound: assertions, based largely on facts.
Trump critics have always basked in taking the president to task for “alternate facts.” While we’re correct in complaining that facts are facts, we ignore a truth just as basic: Facts can support alternate views — even diametrically opposed ones.
Take the health care debate. As expected, both took their binary positions. Bernie pointed out how poorly the nation ranks when compared to other industrialized countries, despite being exponentially richest.
Cruz countered that America has meddled enough in private lives and our costs are so high because we offer so much — including options and speed in healthcare unheard of in Europe.
And both cited facts. Facts you could look up. And use to inform any opinion on the political spectrum.
And so it went. The political system, as it was meant to work. At debate’s end, they shook hands (there was no question that they would) and walked to their supporters’ waiting arms, Sanders to his left, Cruz to the right.
Surrendering facts is a little like shooting your own bullets. No need; they’ll do whatever you want them to.
You just have to know how to handle them.
