EricHiggin said:
JWeinCom said:
You are claiming that Robert Reich wants to make "only the bad ones who helped Trump do bad things" pay. This is not the same thing as making any state who fails to go along with Democratic agenda pay. So, again completely irrelevant.
I am not assuming a thing. I am asking if we have evidence based on the past that they will do this. If there is not, then we can discuss whether there is a reason to believe things will be different this time (and if Reich is the best you've got, then I'm guessing no). But, things have to be taken one step at a time.
As for the question, you would have to be direct enough to actually answer it, which you still haven't done. Instead you're talking about mars, world peace, and claiming I made assumptions that I never made.
It's a yes or no question, so a direct answer would include a yes or a no. If the answer is yes, then it should contain a follow up explaining the exact actions taken. So, if you are interested in engaging in an actual conversation, please demonstrate that by answering. I cannot possibly be any clearer.
Edit: If you're going to post a link, explain why the link is relevant, I'm not going to read any more since this is the second time you've posted something that has nothing to do with punishing states that don't go along with the democratic party.
|
You mean like your initial assumption below, in which I corrected you? So why are we here then?
You indirectly referenced a point I made and are pretending like it meant something it didn't based on what followed it, so your question makes no sense to begin with and how is it that you're expecting a 'reasonable' answer?
The links and vids are never relevant anyway so why does anyone ever bother?
EricHiggin said:
It referred to the prior, because that would make sense, as what followed wouldn't.
|
JWeinCom said:
... what?
You said " If you go against them they'll make you pay and make an example of you for other states who dare disobey."
So, we've seen two situations where Democrats have had control of the house, senate, and presidency. When they did, did they do what you have suggested they will now? If so, give me examples of how.
|
|
"It referred to the prior, because that would make sense, as what followed wouldn't."
I have no idea what you're referring to, which is why I said "what"? Probable because there isn't any actual noun in that sentence, which makes pretty darn hard to understand. Nor did you in any way point me to the part of the post you were referring to. I have no idea what "it" "that" "the prior" or "what followed" refer to. I genuinely have no idea what this sentence means, and I'm 100% confident in saying the problem is your writing. If you'd like to rephrase that clearly, I can respond, but otherwise, I can't.
"The links and vids are never relevant anyway so why does anyone ever bother?"
Posting descriptions for links that are posted are required by the rules. I had a lengthy exchange with you over this in which you thanked me for explaining the rationale behind the rule.
I'm not about to go on a scavenger hunt to figure out what point you're trying to make. I explained why I don't think it's relevant. If there's something I missed about it it is your job to explain that instead of whining. Show me an example of someone posting a video with a description and being told they can't do so.
"When the Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency, did they use that to attack states that make states that dared go against them pay?"
The question makes perfect sense. You even said it was "very simple". Which it is. You suggested the democrats will do a thing. I'm asking you if they have done it in the past. Either yes or no. AFTER you answer that, THEN we can discuss whether or not there is reason to believe their future behavior will be different from their past behavior. But, if you're not intellectually honest enough to answer a yes or no question, we can't proceed.
I'm honestly doing my best to give you the opportunity to show that you are interested in genuine conversation, instead of simply ranting about how democrats are evil and are going to punish anyone who doesn't give into their agenda. Several other people have also, as far as I can see, responded to you with logical and generally respectful critiques. Instead of responding, you are being evasive, playing the victim, and trying to divert the conversation.
So, the choice is yours. If you want to participate in this thread, that means making your points directly and responding to direct points directly.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 07 January 2021