And if your party member is incapable of voting then he should have resigned a long fucking time ago. That’s on them for not forcing him out. The same way Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have resigned due to her failing health instead of clinging to last vestiges of power.
I guess you are going to defend Sen. Dianne Feinstein now too, when she incapable of doing her job, but being forced to stay in her position because that’s convientent for Adam Schiff to stay in power.
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Oh I read it, written by Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm.
And if your party member is incapable of voting then he should have resigned a long fucking time ago. That’s on them for not forcing him out. The same way Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have resigned due to her failing health instead of clinging to last vestiges of power.
I guess you are going to defend Sen. Dianne Feinstein now too, when she incapable of doing her job, but being forced to stay in her position because that’s convientent for Adam Schiff to stay in power.
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.
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.