I’m gonna cut to the chase of a longer comment I typed out. The only part that really needs to be said:
“So, since there’s no way to argue with it factually, the combatant seizes on a deliberate misunderstanding of what I was saying and tries to reframe the whole conversation around that misunderstanding, in order to create a thing to disagree about which isn’t the factually-indefensible original thing to disagree about.”
The rest and the context are pretty self-explanatory.
You wanted to give him credit for passing something that didn’t pass and that he can’t pass. If you don’t want people getting on your case for it, don’t tell others that they don’t know how government works.
He proposed legalizing it. Nothing passed. Proposals and failures are not accomplishments. He doesn’t get credit for BBB for the same reason: it failed.
You may be willing to give him credit for failures. I give him credit for his successes, such as selling weapons to Netanyahu for genocide.
You seized on literally the only thing in my long-enough-to-be-tedious list that was an attempt instead of an outcome, and are trying to spin it into me giving him credit only for failures. I’m almost impressed.
The first two items in my list represented the successful outcome of his second attempt at something, after the first attempt was blocked, but those $144 billion and 40% reduction numbers are the outcome (after the initial much bigger attempt). Then comes the attempt at marijuana legalization. Every other item is simply the outcome.
I think you should get some sort of award for how vaguely plausible you make this argument sound, given the yawning gulf between it and what actually happened, and the fact that the evidence for it not happening the way you said is literally just right up there in the comments up above (not buried away somewhere in some government document that there could be legitimate debate about how to interpret.)
You seized on literally the only thing in my long-enough-to-be-tedious list that was an attempt instead of an outcome, and are dealing with it as if giving him credit for that attempt was the only thing I’d done, instead of one attempt listed among a big group of demonstrated successes. I’m almost impressed.
The first two items in my list represented the successful outcome of his second attempt at something, after the first attempt was blocked, but those $144 billion and 40% reduction numbers are the outcome (after the initial much bigger attempt). Then comes the attempt at marijuana legalization. Every other item is simply the outcome.
I think you should get some sort of award for how vaguely plausible you make this argument sound, given the yawning gulf between it and what I actually said, and the fact that the evidence for it not happening the way you said is literally just right up there in the comments up above (not buried away somewhere in some government document that there could be legitimate debate about how to interpret.)
If you don’t want me pointing out when you call a failure an accomplishment, all you need to do is not call a failure an accomplishment. If you feel entitled to me addressing every last word of your comment, you should consider that I’m not here to fulfill your unreasonable sense of entitlement.
You can’t meaningfully respond to the substance, so you’re seizing on weird little trivialities – out of this list of billion- and trillion-dollar scale good things Biden did, one and only one of them was merely a good-faith attempt to do something good, and it didn’t succeed! Dude sucks.
That’s a very bad argument, and I feel like I’ve spent entirely too much time at this point explaining why that is. Happier with that?
I’m gonna cut to the chase of a longer comment I typed out. The only part that really needs to be said:
“So, since there’s no way to argue with it factually, the combatant seizes on a deliberate misunderstanding of what I was saying and tries to reframe the whole conversation around that misunderstanding, in order to create a thing to disagree about which isn’t the factually-indefensible original thing to disagree about.”
The rest and the context are pretty self-explanatory.
You wanted to give him credit for passing something that didn’t pass and that he can’t pass. If you don’t want people getting on your case for it, don’t tell others that they don’t know how government works.
He proposed legalizing it. Nothing passed. Proposals and failures are not accomplishments. He doesn’t get credit for BBB for the same reason: it failed.
You may be willing to give him credit for failures. I give him credit for his successes, such as selling weapons to Netanyahu for genocide.
You seized on literally the only thing in my long-enough-to-be-tedious list that was an attempt instead of an outcome, and are trying to spin it into me giving him credit only for failures. I’m almost impressed.
The first two items in my list represented the successful outcome of his second attempt at something, after the first attempt was blocked, but those $144 billion and 40% reduction numbers are the outcome (after the initial much bigger attempt). Then comes the attempt at marijuana legalization. Every other item is simply the outcome.
I think you should get some sort of award for how vaguely plausible you make this argument sound, given the yawning gulf between it and what actually happened, and the fact that the evidence for it not happening the way you said is literally just right up there in the comments up above (not buried away somewhere in some government document that there could be legitimate debate about how to interpret.)
Well, if you’re going to try to give him credit for shit he hasn’t done, I’m gonna call you on it.
Never said that. You’re telling on yourself.
Okay, fine. Let me try again.
You seized on literally the only thing in my long-enough-to-be-tedious list that was an attempt instead of an outcome, and are dealing with it as if giving him credit for that attempt was the only thing I’d done, instead of one attempt listed among a big group of demonstrated successes. I’m almost impressed.
The first two items in my list represented the successful outcome of his second attempt at something, after the first attempt was blocked, but those $144 billion and 40% reduction numbers are the outcome (after the initial much bigger attempt). Then comes the attempt at marijuana legalization. Every other item is simply the outcome.
I think you should get some sort of award for how vaguely plausible you make this argument sound, given the yawning gulf between it and what I actually said, and the fact that the evidence for it not happening the way you said is literally just right up there in the comments up above (not buried away somewhere in some government document that there could be legitimate debate about how to interpret.)
Happier with that?
If you don’t want me pointing out when you call a failure an accomplishment, all you need to do is not call a failure an accomplishment. If you feel entitled to me addressing every last word of your comment, you should consider that I’m not here to fulfill your unreasonable sense of entitlement.
Okay, fine. Let me try again.
You can’t meaningfully respond to the substance, so you’re seizing on weird little trivialities – out of this list of billion- and trillion-dollar scale good things Biden did, one and only one of them was merely a good-faith attempt to do something good, and it didn’t succeed! Dude sucks.
That’s a very bad argument, and I feel like I’ve spent entirely too much time at this point explaining why that is. Happier with that?
I argued with what I took exception to.
If you don’t want me saying that you’re trying to pass off failure as success, I’ve already said how you can avoid that in the future.
So you don’t take exception to any of the rest of it?