Continued Trump Administration Fallout

[Dill]

(05-07-2021, 07:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Was that the post I responded to?
I believe anyone with a basic grasp of the English language could answer that question by reading the post you responded to.
I believe anyone with a basic grasp of the English language could answer that question by reading the post you responded to.

Hmm. You said I asked a different question, but failed to specify any "different" question. The quotes show I repeated the same, question, copy pasted, which you only answered on the fourth and final call.

Perhaps someone with a basic grasp of English can construct your agreement that 1) the Founders intended the Senate to pass bills with a simple majority, and that 2) you think a 60 vote majority for passage of bills is "keeping with the Chamber's purpose." 

And perhaps someone with a basic grasp of logic can see an inconsistency here, if it's the Founders who decide the Chamber's purpose, and they designed it to pass bills with a simple, not a supermajority.

When people sincerely want to be understood, they take care to reduce ambiguity in their statements; they don't respond to requests for clarification with even more elliptical questions/constructions.

When people want to obscure logical inconsistency, they embrace ellipsis and ambiguity for the plausible deniability it affords. (You didn't ACTUALLY state the Founders intended bills to pass with a simple majority, did you? I couldn't get you to do that on the Puerto Rico thread.) 

So there is an inconsistency between 1) and 2) which you may deny or commit too, depending on how I specify it. After all I don't have a direct quotation from you--only some buzz about a "basic grasp of English."  And this inconsistency may involve a number of others as well.
 
Hence the preference for deflecting questions and elliptical construction. Nothing to see here folks--look, over there, DILL is inconsistent!! 

Well let's see how the charge fits:

(05-07-2021, 07:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: By your own admission you have not complained about the filibuster before, despite it being in place since the mid 1800's.  As it now stymies your apparently preferred agenda you suddenly take issue with it.  Does this make you a hypocrite?  No, many of your other positions reveal your hypocrisy, but this is not one of them.  Hence my not making the assertion in this instance.  What it does make you is inconsistent, which is the charge I levelled against you in this instance. This is neither "rather too far" or even too far, it's precisely on point.  I must say, watching your edifice of genteel erudition erode by the post is amusing me to no end.  My how the mighty have fallen.  

You've leveled quite a few unsupported "charges" against me on this thread, including gaslighting and "hate for our system." And actually you did assert I was a hypocrite "in this instance": post #42 --"why didn't you make any posts about it during the years it stymied the Trump administration?  The answer is because you're a massive hypocrite."

I believe Bels and Michealsean don't like Trump. And now, on this thread, after years of silence, they too have suddenly taken issue with the filibuster. Where were they when Trump was "stymied"?  "Massive hypocrisy" here? Or ok when your friends do it? 

Sure you've thought this post facto gambit through? And given YOUR record, you expected no blowback from charging me with inconsistency?? 

One day you stand against hyperbole, and another you accuse me of supporting MS-13 because I won't call them "animals"--nevermind that some of your very best friends won't call them that either. So far as I know, you are the only guy in this forum who directly accuses other forum members "racism," but you warn the conservatives away from a Dino thread claiming that's what the liberals will do if they participate. When I ask you to cite examples of the nefarious tricks you insist I've learned from Fred, you can't; rather you insinuate I "see" them but won't cop to it. And accuse me of gaslighting. 

And then yesterday you asserted that I am "confused" by all your consistency. Indeed. Perhaps you got that one right.

So you've come at me every week with these ad hoc arguments: feels good one day to embrace the concept of absolute free speech, and another day to urge the moderators to delete a thread that crosses your preferred agenda. Different day, different standard. I apparently track your own arguments much better than you do.  Did you suppose the limits of this venue would prevent demonstration?

Why not leave off trying to "fell the mighty" and just focus on political issues and persons in the news, perhaps learning as you go, as I do.

(05-07-2021, 07:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  watching your edifice of genteel erudition erode by the post is amusing me to no end.  My how the mighty have fallen.