this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
198 points (94.6% liked)
World News
32378 readers
493 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Moving the goalposts is a lazy form of debate. Thank you for admitting you were wrong about Obama having a supermajority and should have codified abortion rights.
I will agree with you that they should have forced Ginsburg out and Feinstein should have been voted out a year ago. But that's not what you initially claimed (multiple times, I might add).
But not Senator Byrd, right?
Again with the goalposts. Facts are facts. Admit you were wrong about Obama having a supermajority. Unless you are just being a provocateur, you don't help your case when you clearly miss the truth and deflect from admitting it.
Okay. I checked the timeline. It's shit.
Robert Byrd was relased from hospital in 2009-06-30 - https://rollcall.com/2009/06/30/byrd-released-from-hospital-2/
Al Franken's was sworn in 2009-07-07 - https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna31778598
Robert Byrd was again only hospitalized in 2009-09-22 - https://www.politico.com/story/2009/09/byrd-admitted-to-hospital-after-fall-027429
Lol. Byrd was 91 and "out of commission". He wasn't present and your timeline means nothing. I'll say it again for the tenth time, Obama did not have a supermajority to override a Republican filibuster.
It's not my timeline. It's me proving your timeline in https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869 is just factually wrong.
Lololol. First, Franken’s timeline is as stated. Byrd was out. You somehow think that his being out of the hospital means he was present and voting? Are you an idiot?
Is not an argument.
I'm out. I was open to discussion until personal attacks.
You were never open to a discussion because you refused to admit you were wrong about the supermajority. And you’ve spent a lot of time deflecting from that fact.
Just gonna call you out for a sec.
He said Ginsburg and Fenstein, because you said Ginsburg and Feinstein. While the answer to this question could easily be a "yes", this wasn't part of the original message. You're expecting him to bring up things you yourself didn't.
It was.
You're just arguing in bad faith. We can easily just say yes but if you don't explicitly bring it up then you're just trying to find a way to debase the argument. You shouldn't expect people to answer for people you only bring up after your first argument didn't give you the results you wanted.