Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I re-read his piece to understand how one could take from it the idea that he's suggesting a "technique" but I still don't get it.
Yglesias and I disagree. Re-read.
Did you read his piece? Maybe not.
Did you read his piece? Maybe not.
You've said this to me so many times -- if you don't think I've ever understood before, why do you bother repeating yourself? Conversely, does it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, I have some understand that in my preferences are not always shared?
I guess I have a higher opinion of the nation.
That's not a close analogue at all. Maybe there is no good precedent for a lawless President leading a polarized party, and we have to find a new solution to a new situation.
|
Maybe you need to recognize where you're wrong. I understand I have a capacity to write in manner that compels one to disagree with me even when he's kind of agreeing with me, but you need to develop a capacity to admit when you're on thin ice, or just flatly wrong.
You're just doing the "Ty being haughty" default here. You cited an article where someone suggested that protests in conjunction with impeachment might succeed in ousting Trump. I explained why I think Yglesias is way off in that assessment. In response, you first whined and called me a cynic. I replied, evenhandedly, and you now accuse me of not having read the article.
Look, I'm happy to go back and forth with you on this. But you're not offering much. Maybe you don't have time. OK. Reply when you do. I've a meeting in 30, so I might not reply until tomorrow. But if you must insist Yglesias is on to something in suggesting protests are needed and could work (contrary to the tacit admission he's wrong which you coughed up in calling me a cynic), explain why. Tell me why we're going to see mass protests and they're going to succeed in removing Trump.
(I'm also interested in how Iran Contra is not far worse than what Trump has done. Here, a novice is fucking up. There, a group of pros subverted Congress and gave weapons to an enemy. Were the people involved in that actual conspiracy not "lawless"? I think some were actually convicted of crimes.)
