HD, if you’re not going to join me in the pit, I got nothing to say to you. Your behavior is transparently not worth engaging with.
shrug I don’t care. You’ve made factually-incorrect claims in this thread and I’ve corrected them. I have no desire to join you in the pit, and you’re free to ignore what I’ve posted here (in fact, I’d encourage you to do so if you don’t think you are capable of abiding by the rules of this forum in responding to me). If you make further factually-deficient claims, I’ll probably correct them again here, and you’re free to do whatever you want with that information.
Which only holds true if you take Republicans to be honest with the public. If you want to keep eating the turd sandwich, go ahead, but don’t expect the rest of us to agree that it’s delicious.
Honestly, I’d rather this thread not become a showcase for HD’s particular . . . talents. His cherry-picking of data and remarkable interpretations of what folks say don’t merit much response, not in a thread that’s supposed to be substantive. I’d consider it a favor if folks would take responses to him to a more appropriate forum.
All the claims of deception / dirty tricks / assurances & lies stem from one single tweet from one single Republican to one single reporter that said “No votes at 830.” He was obviously mistaken, but that’s weak tea. Extremely weak, even for libs on the SDMB. But, by all means, keep bunching your panties or screaming at the sky or throwing a tantrum.
There’s nothing “remarkable” about my interpretations. You said “Republicans” (plural) and “reporters” (plural) and you were wrong to do so.
I’ve got a better idea: put him on Ignore.
I just came across this four year old article from the Daily Tar Heel (UNC newspaper)…
NC House Speaker to-be Tim Moore has contentious past
He’s been doing shit like this since his college days. What an asshole.
Well I think we have our answer to H.Ditka’s question about whether Democrats or Republicans are more patriotic.
Hint, its not the side that cynically used the other sides observance of a day of rememberence to screw them over.
Good point!
You claim that the victim was shot six times at point-blank range with a .45. Forensic tests and autopsy prove, beyond any doubt, that only five shots were fired. Hence, your facts are wrong and therefore your charge of bloody murder is quashed by the facts!
If you think the actions of a handful of state legislators can save your side’s patriotism deficit from polls like this, well, I don’t think there’s anything else that needs to be said on that subject.
Ha! On the one side, we have actual actions by political legislators in office, prioritizing political concerns over patriotic remembrances and honor… And on the other, we have some internet guy’s weird and childishly simplistic interpretation of polling answers (which don’t actually have anything to do with actual patriotism). I wonder which actually affects the real world more? Hmmm…
Does it even matter whether or not the Republicans said there wouldn’t be a vote? Either way, taking advantage of the 9/11 memorial to push through a veto override is despicable.
It matters for purposes of evaluating the accuracy (or inaccuracy, in this case) of these claims:
If someone just wants to share their opinion that they think it was a shitty thing to do, fine, you know what they say about opinions. However, if someone’s going to make a factual claim about alleged actions by their political opponents, they should be accurate. And it matters, or should matter, to a place that claims to be “fighting ignorance”.
Drop this hijack about whether it was singular or multiple.
[/moderating]
Thanks
It matters because to suggest Republicans didn’t pass this message to Dems through channels that are traditionally reliable suggests Dems acted in such a bizarre way that traumatic brain injury would be the likeliest explanation.
Dems knew that Moore was pulling every string he could find to override the veto. They know about his nasty political tricks and his lack of decorum (Google the “motorcycle abortion bill” y’all). They’ve been showing up every day, rescheduling vital life needs, to prevent him from doing the shit they know he wants to do.
So why would Democrats suddenly skip this vote?
a) Traumatic brain injury suffered en masse, making them forget the strategy they’ve committed to, sacrificing so much in the process; or
b) They received assurances through historically reliable channels that 9/11 at least would be treated as a day of truce, and so for the first time in two months thought it was safe not to show up.
I’m not seeing an explanation “c” on offer, which is why it’s so offensively absurd to suggest that those assurances weren’t offered.
There’s a good question about whether they should have relied on those channels. Living here and seeing how the state has functioned, I can’t blame the Dems too much for relying on them: it’s really hard to admit that your political opponent hasn’t the tiniest shred of decency. But if they rely on them again, I’ll fault them.
What are these “channels that are traditionally reliable” that you’re referring to? Do you know of their existence, and that they were utilized to communicate that Wednesday would be a truce, or are you just speculating / guessing?
‘Assurances must have been given because I just can’t imagine the dems acting this stupidly’ is not a convincing argument. I don’t have any trouble imagining the dems acting this stupidly. Perhaps they even perceive a political advantage in losing this vote, in that now they get to get back to their “vital life needs” and can bray loudly about imagined “assurances” and paint the Republicans generally as people who went back on their word. In short, they get to paint themselves as martyrs and now don’t actually have to keep doing the hard work of legislating, or at least standing athwart legislation.
again: done with you.
Sure, but there’s an attempt to divert the conversation onto the subject of whether or not the Republicans said there wouldn’t be a vote. If that attempt succeeds then it becomes a “he said, she said” argument which is easier to muddy and diverts discussion away from the Republicans’ despicably unethical gaming of the system, behavior that is difficult to defend.
It diverts the discussion from something that’s hard to defend to an argument about who said what. It’s a typical rhetorical trick.