no. its just you morally loading every statement so that you can grandstand. And you do it in almost every thread I’ve seen you in. Try, as an exercise, to sometime engage with someone’s arguments (just one time) without invoking any pejorative or dramatic virtuous invocations. You might find a new world is waiting for you- a wold where dialog can flow and thoughts can be exchanged. I’ll be waiting for you there when you’re ready.
its just you morally loading every statement so that you can grandstand. And you do it in almost every thread I’ve seen you in.
Nope. I sometimes use grand words for accuracy or emphasis, but never disingenuously like you’re doing right now. Grandstanding is EMPTY posturing, not emphatically saying true and important things.
Since you obviously don’t know the difference, here’s a short primer:
When a Republican says that they’re being silenced by the government during a prime time TV appearance to promote their new book, that’s grandstanding.
When a progressive who doesn’t take corporate PAC money emphatically says that billionaires and their corporations have too much power over society, that’s not grandstanding.
Do you understand it now or do you need me to find a video explaining it with puppets?
Try, as an exercise, to sometime engage with someone’s arguments (just one time) without invoking any pejorative or dramatic virtuous invocations.
I do that every time. I only get snide and sarcastic about it once it’s clear that the other person is not engaging in good faith and/or ignoring something I already explained because it doesn’t fit their narrative.
You might find a new world is waiting for you- a wold where dialog can flow and thoughts can be exchanged. I’ll be waiting for you there when you’re ready.
And there’s some more of that hypocrisy from the same person who excused ME of grandstanding just a few sentences earlier 🤦
Are you SURE you’re not a Republican? Even the worst neoliberals usually aren’t THAT blatantly hypocritical…
I’m not the one constantly loading every phrase with all the virtuous condemnation diarrhea because I can actually engage with arguments without attacking the character of the author.
Also, at no point did I fucking defend Biden. I just called out your stupid analogy about Cuba. Seems like you just had all the insults ready to deploy and were never interested in the argument.
Saying that the awful things he does by choice is actually necessary things that he doesn’t like doing and would stop if he could IS defending him.
As is repeatedly trying to deflect to a completely different topic.
Let me bend it in neon for you one last time:
My analogy was NOT about Cuba. It was about the fact that presidents have the power to change longstanding foreign policy, contrary to what the person I was replying to was implying.
Secondarily (that means later and less importantly), it was a comparison of one president who sometimes had the guts to go against tradition and the will of rich and powerful pressure groups and one who doesn’t.
Saying that the awful things he does by choice is actually necessary things that he doesn’t like doing and would stop if he could
Thank goodness it wasn’t my argument.
the fact that presidents have the power to change longstanding foreign policy
correct. And my response was…? Let me restate it because maybe it wasn’t clear:
What a president can do and what a president ought to do in changing policy are two different things and bringing up the fact that change was able to occur in a place with low stakes (cuba: very low stakes) is not equivalent to the policy change that needs to occur in Israel (very high stakes). It’s not apples to apples, is it?
no. its just you morally loading every statement so that you can grandstand. And you do it in almost every thread I’ve seen you in. Try, as an exercise, to sometime engage with someone’s arguments (just one time) without invoking any pejorative or dramatic virtuous invocations. You might find a new world is waiting for you- a wold where dialog can flow and thoughts can be exchanged. I’ll be waiting for you there when you’re ready.
Nope. I sometimes use grand words for accuracy or emphasis, but never disingenuously like you’re doing right now. Grandstanding is EMPTY posturing, not emphatically saying true and important things.
Since you obviously don’t know the difference, here’s a short primer:
When a Republican says that they’re being silenced by the government during a prime time TV appearance to promote their new book, that’s grandstanding.
When a progressive who doesn’t take corporate PAC money emphatically says that billionaires and their corporations have too much power over society, that’s not grandstanding.
Do you understand it now or do you need me to find a video explaining it with puppets?
I do that every time. I only get snide and sarcastic about it once it’s clear that the other person is not engaging in good faith and/or ignoring something I already explained because it doesn’t fit their narrative.
And there’s some more of that hypocrisy from the same person who excused ME of grandstanding just a few sentences earlier 🤦
Are you SURE you’re not a Republican? Even the worst neoliberals usually aren’t THAT blatantly hypocritical…
I’m not the one constantly loading every phrase with all the virtuous condemnation diarrhea because I can actually engage with arguments without attacking the character of the author.
Attack the idea-not the people.
That would have been a LOT easier to take seriously if it hadn’t been appended to a comment consisting entirely of baseless personal attacks 😂
Also, at no point did I fucking defend Biden. I just called out your stupid analogy about Cuba. Seems like you just had all the insults ready to deploy and were never interested in the argument.
Saying that the awful things he does by choice is actually necessary things that he doesn’t like doing and would stop if he could IS defending him.
As is repeatedly trying to deflect to a completely different topic.
Let me bend it in neon for you one last time:
My analogy was NOT about Cuba. It was about the fact that presidents have the power to change longstanding foreign policy, contrary to what the person I was replying to was implying.
Secondarily (that means later and less importantly), it was a comparison of one president who sometimes had the guts to go against tradition and the will of rich and powerful pressure groups and one who doesn’t.
Thank goodness it wasn’t my argument.
correct. And my response was…? Let me restate it because maybe it wasn’t clear:
What a president can do and what a president ought to do in changing policy are two different things and bringing up the fact that change was able to occur in a place with low stakes (cuba: very low stakes) is not equivalent to the policy change that needs to occur in Israel (very high stakes). It’s not apples to apples, is it?