401
Biden Is Building a 'Superstructure' to Stop Trump From Stealing the Election
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
401 points (96.1% liked)
politics
19107 readers
4047 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You know he already pardoned everyone who was in federal prison for simple possession, 2 years ago, right?
And told the DEA to reschedule it
And passed a bill for full federal legalization, which the Republicans defeated in the senate?
Yes, Trump famously got everything he wanted. Ukraine never got their military aid that he tried to block, and the Department of Justice famously bent to his every whim and prosecuted his political opponents when he kept ordering them to. I remember it well.
This is actually the most heinously dishonest of the things you've been saying but I have become discouraged and don't want to spend too much more time researching and illustrating why this is all wrong.
Family separation at the border was already dead when Biden took office; it only ran for about a year in the middle of his presidency. But Biden did start the task force to find the kids' families and reunite them. The flow of immigrant children was quite literally in the exact opposite direction of what you're saying under Biden: From being imprisoned in cages to being back with their families. Look up your own citation for it, I'm getting genuinely irritated that I have to spend time talking about this.
The president doesn't pass bills, and this one wasn't passed by those that do pass bills. Tell progressives again that they don't know how government works.
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?
Well, I just re-read it, and you were right: it was tedious.
But since you asked: I'm not great with the implication that asking the DEA to look into descheduling is an accomplishment, either. You did ignore what the other commenter said about democrats always managing to find the votes to bomb foreigners, but I figured you wanted to focus on what you took exception to, and not start a slapfight over every last word in someone's comment. I'm only saying this now because you asked, not out of any desire to provoke or indulge further combativeness.
Do you believe Biden should pardon everyone in prison for Marijuana-related crimes?
Just skip to the bit where you can't defend your position and call me a Russian. It's all you'll ever know.
Answer the question.
Go upstairs and ask your parents what it's like to live with disappointment, because I'm not going to participate on your terms.
Just skipping to the bit where you can't defend your position?
I haven't stated a position.
Makes it pretty hard to defend one then
It's great for frustrating sea lions, though.