I think this thread has jumped the shark.
Which oddly didn’t mention anything specific.
These are significant, representative accomplishments how?
Let’s not go into your dishonest (and possibly rules-violating, your use of parentheses notwithstanding) editing of my question to include time in the Illinois Legislature, when you know damn well the problem has been in Washington and will continue to be. Unless, that is, you believe GW Bush’s success in working with Texas Democrats has been replicated there as well.
Not playiing your game, and especially not with the dishonesty *you * need to play it. You know the only answer you’ll agree with.
You do have to admit she’s been through the worst of their partisan fire, and has not only survived but prevailed. But my belief that she’s better prepared for it, for all that, is essentially a feeling based on trust, exactly like yours - the difference being that I *recognize * it for what it is.
The only kind that has ever worked. What, you think nobody else in the last two and a quarter centuries has ever run as a reformer? Somebody who could transcent the partisan divide? This guy really is something new, something different, a more-highly-evolved life form that has appeared on Earth right in time for our needs? Let me break it to you then - he ain’t the first.
That’s the concern, yes. It’s even based on precedent.
Is that concern unreasonable?
Only as unreasonable as the assumption that Hillary is Nixonian. That is to say, yes it is unreasonable. They both are.
Go look up the meaning of “precedent”. :rolleyes:
And, when come back, bring argument.
Time for a *third * one to tempt even more posts, you think? There’s a long time until Pennsylvania - are you sure?
Which, oddly, you didn’t ask that it did. You simply demanded to know, “So who here thinks the GOP, which will probably still have filibuster power and has a strong history of simply obstructing anything the Democrats try to do regardless of merit, is suddenly going to roll over and work with Obama just because of his personal charisma?” The answer I provided is an utterly adequate reply. Barack Obama, by utilizing his interpersonal skills, was able to convince every single solitary Republican in the Illinois Legislature to unanimously vote for a bill that they vehemently opposed at the outset. Based on this history, it is I who thinks the GOP. . . is going to . . . work with Obama just because of his personal charisma.
But, not willing to acknowledge this accomplishment, you find a way to weasel out of accepting the answer to the question you asked.
They are significant in that they show Obama’s ability to work alongside Republicans in the United States Senate towards enacting mutually beneficial legislation of a significant nature and impact.
As you note, I intentionally put brackets around the replacement in your quote precisely to indicate that that was minor change from the original quote, not in any way altering the meaning. The problem between Republicans and Democrats is universal, and his ability to do so effectively throughout his entire legislative career is relevant.
Actually, I do believe that. He has proven to be exactly as duplicitous and as big a liar as he was when he was governing Texas. Exactly.
This has gotten just fucking comical. There’s no game here. This is an extremely important decision people are making as to who will represent us and this nation as our President. That you consistently refuse to provide a single bit of evidence that Hillary Clinton is qualified to do so is telling. Quit pretending you’re simply refusing to play because I won’t like your answer. I know you won’t like my answers, either, but that doesn’t prevent me from providing them when called upon. If there’s an answer, give it.
First, what does her having been through the worst of their partisan fire have to do with whether or not she’ll make a good President, capable of working with them in Congress? Secondly, quit misrepresenting my position. I am not supporting Barack Obama because of “essentially. . . feeling [something] based on trust,” so there is nothing about your position that is “exactly like [mine]”. Not even close.
I’m just going to ignore that last bit of ridiculousness.
Clinton has a track record … a track record of failing to deliver the goods and of being a lightning rod for partisanship. Her approach is one of fighting the other side with all tools at her disposal, whether the other side is her competition for the nomination or the Republican party. It is good recipe for stalemate. Despite her current plan to win by focusing on the base ( Blue states plus one), even she has previously recognized that accomplishing things actually takes some bipartisanship.
Those were her thoughts last October. She just doesn’t have the skill set to do that.
Obama has, as Shayna has documented, the skill set to reach across the aisle and actually get things done.
You realize, of course, that your response makes absolutely no sense to me.
In today’s Iowa County Convention, where Obama started out with 38% to Clinton’s 29% and Edwards’ 30%, Barack Obama picked up the lion’s share of the Edwards delegates, increasing his lead to 52% to Clinton’s 32%, and as a result, added 7 more pledged delegates to his current delegate lead.
You do know this is the second thread of the same ilk, right? If this one wraps up, there’ll only be a third. Is that really what you want?
You missed the point of my post.
Step back a moment and consider what it takes to actually convince somebody of something. When you claim something specific and then don’t follow up, what effect do you think that has?
Sigh … reread what I said about your dishonest behavior, okay?
Pity you didn’t actually read what I said, or you’d understand that, in fact, you did alter the meaning. That’s why the rule against doing what you did is in place. I told you why it matters, too. If you had no intent to change the meaning, as you now claim, then there was no need to tamper with the quote then, was there?
Really, is there any point in anyone continuing to engage you if you refuse to accept responsibility for your own statements and actions here?
Cite? :dubious:
Obviously you missed the point of the analogy, then. Try again.
Indeed it is. That you so far have not do so without merrily hating away, and without considering that viewpoints you don’t share just might have a bit of merit, instead demonizing them while still excusing yourself for “honestly” *thinking * you’re being factual, is certainly not respecting that importance.
Are you actually trying to convince anyone of anything in particular, or are you just making Obama supporters look like a crowd that an honest and thoughtful and responsible citizen might not want to join?
Good question. I could go back and list the various times that you’ve done this, but let’s start with this one.
Cite precedent.
I’ve wondered that myself.
Moderator’s Note: OK, I’m going to go ahead and cut this thread’s life tragically short, after only 10 pages and 490-odd posts.
1.) Please don’t make alterations to other people’s words, even minor ones, in quoted text blocks. I won’t say there are absolutely zero exceptions to this rule; for example, if someone writes a nine-paragraph post and you only want to respond to one statement in paragraph four, you don’t have to quote the whole thing just to reply to that one sentence. But, as we’ve seen, attributing even a small change to someone else’s wording can cause serious bitterness.
2.) Please keep in mind the rule about accusations of lying in GD. If you think someone is debating “dishonestly”, this is not the forum in which to say it.