Because that's all I was doing with this, challenging some things you said that didn't make any sense. If I misunderstood you, then I was giving you a chance to clarify. You tried that on one of these points and while I'm not really convinced I'll let that drop. But on the other ones you're standing firm.


>>So when faced with the fact that Nancy Pelosi is resisting
>>impeachment; by all accounts an incomparably skilled
>>politician, second generation, who knows how the machine
>works
>>and why it works that way; who in particular knows that the
>>blue wave that drove her to leadership of the small amount
>of
>>power the Democrats currently hold, was driven by new
>members
>>in red states and purple districts who can't afford to take
>>sides on impeachment; your conclusion is that the
>sixteen-term
>>representative from San Francisco is a centrist who would
>>rather be "passing incremental shit (if that)."
>
>
>**sigh** Yeah, we will never agree here. Just accept it.


Wait, so do you ACTUALLY think Nancy Pelosi is philosophically a centrist?! I honestly didn't think you or anyone actually believed that.

Forget any preconceptions you have about Nancy Pelosi for the moment, and I will too. Treat it as an Occam's razor argument. We have a perfectly simple explanation for why a Speaker of the House would resist impeachment: the members who support it are in safe districts, but the members who oppose it are in unsafe districts. Do we need any more explanation than that?



I'll let the thing about the medal drop. Like I said, the whole point was about clarifying. I hope you can at least see, though, how your history of knee-jerk rage against Biden (and pragmatic politicians in general) would cause me to miss your (pretty obscure) joke.






>>>Why else do they call the GOP good, decent people?
>>
>>Because that's what voters want to hear?
>>
>>Specifically, voters all across the political spectrum
>>repeatedly say that one of their biggest complaints with
>>Donald Trump is his propensity to insult people. They say
>they
>>want a return to normalcy, and this is a part of that. This
>is
>>just obvious political strategy, and it's also probably a
>part
>>of why Warren has been rising.
>
>Cmon. There is a big difference between not insulting the GOP
>and straight up ignoring what they are and how they blocked
>your own admin.

What? What is he ignoring? Are you expecting him to just volunteer a statement that if he's president things would go basically the same as they would with any of the other candidates? Now that would be a gaffe I'd be surprised by even from Biden.

>There is also a big difference between not insulting the GOP
>and condescending those in your party who do.

Yeah, you can score political points by condescending to other candidates with political liabilities. There is nothing new here.


>Stop.
>
>You know my point, and you know the difference.

*IF* I know your point, then your point is nonsense. So because I actually do respect you I'm hoping I still don't follow you.


>Next time, just gloss over my Nancy criticism so we can have a
>real conversation.

I'm just bemused by your Nancy criticism. I honestly thought you just hadn't thought it through.


>>>Why else does Joe think they'll work with him, when they
>>>didn't work with O?
>>
>>Maybe he doesn't, but again, he knows that's the case that
>the
>>voters want him to make. And so far it's been working for
>him
>>despite your exasperation.
>
>You're funny man. You pretend you don't like Biden, that you
>are just being practical, etc.
>
>But then you get really amped to defend him- so much so, that
>you willfully miss my point, etc.

Like I've said before, I get amped to defuse bad logic. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that I missed your point on the medal thing, but I think we can agree that wasn't willful. It isn't looking like I missed your point at all on the other things.


>That said, I think he truly believes they will work with him.

See?


>One of the reasons I think that, is he doesn't strike me as a
>smooth politician.

I don't know what you mean by "smooth", but he's been in politics since 1970. He knows his way around the basics, at least.

>I don't think he is running some
>next-level campaign- by any stretch.

And I don't know what you mean by "next-level," but I think I agree with you here. He's trying to run a very conventional campaign. The only kind that Democrats have won with for the last 75 years. And again, while we always like to think the world is fundamentally changing, so far his old-fashioned campaign is winning, even despite his obvious flaws.

>I believe him when he says he thinks it will go back to the
>good ole days without Trump there. You know, the good old
>days like '94 and the crime bill.
>
>I don't believe that the same guy who can't be trusted by aids
>to hold a rally is also a smooth operating political genius
>who is just selling a message that voters want to hear.

Again, what you're so incensed by is just standard political practice. The frontrunner always wants to stay above the fray. When you're way ahead of the competition, there's only a downside to rocking the boat. That's how politics has worked for longer than you or I have been around, and it's basically all that's going on here.



>>If there was some OTHER strategy out there that would make
>>Republicans work with him, I'm sure he, like any president,
>>would use it in office. But that's a fantasy at this point.
>GW
>>Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump (remember
>>infrastructure?) ALL ran on promises of restoring
>>bipartisanship, knowing full well that the problem is a lot
>>deeper than anything they'd have the power to solve. It's
>just
>>how politicians win.
>
>Again, big difference between what you're saying and what he
>is actually saying...but whatever helps you stomach it.


Okay, so what is he actually saying? Maybe I missed it.

When Barack Obama said he'd usher in a new age of bipartisanship, that he wanted to be a transformational leader "like Ronald Reagan," after having seen the cutthroat politics of the Clinton and Bush years; does it seem more likely that the most skilled politician of our age was THAT naive? Or is it more likely that he was being a smart politician and giving the voters a narrative that they wanted to hear?


>>>I'm not even an Obama stan like that, but fuck its pissing
>>me
>>>off.
>>
>>I am most definitely an Obama stan, but I honestly don't see
>>what's pissing you off here.
>>
>
>I was going to reply in detail, but nah. You know exactly
>what I am referring to.

My best guess is that you're turning a crank of satisfying groupthink.