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 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.