(01-21-2021 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2021 12:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2021 12:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2021 11:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-21-2021 09:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Gotta say, it is a bit heartening that as soon as Biden was sworn in, things in Washington immediately returned to normal.

Like Ted Cruz being a bloviating ******* that makes disingenuous arguments to score political points, as opposed to legislating on behalf of Texans (which has become a renewable energy powerhouse).


https://twitter.com/sentedcruz/status/13...0646029312

I have been wondering what good rejoining this will do. Perhaps somebody who likes this move could explain to me the benefits.

'Rejoin' is quite the verb here. The item is a treaty. I dont see where the treaty has *ever* been ratified.

Obama signed it and kicked it into the 'weird **** the Presidents do' can when it was utterly not ever put before Congress.

But again, the US has pretty much met its 'obligations' under the accord in the evil time it ws 'not rejoined'. Imagine that.

The kicker is that it treats the real shitbirds like the Chinese with pure kid gloves. But how dare anyone like Cruz make a comment about that topic of burdens and benefits. The horrors. You must need some rest time after having to endure that lad.

Notice how I didn't comment on Cruz criticizing it?

You called him a 'bloviating blahbitty blah blah'. That isnt a comment I guess.

Quote:I commented on Cruz being disingenuous in his arguments. If he wants to make substantive points, go ahead.

But the treaty has nothing to actually do with the views of Paris' citizens, and Pittsburgh has publicly supported the accords, saying that they were going to maintain the obligations when Trump pulled out in 2017.

I guess you missed the point being made is that it values the priorities of everyone else *but* that of the United States. Perhaps in your traipsing around the language you didnt look for the broader point therein.

The mother ****** said Pittsburg! He didn't say the US. He didn't even say at the exclusion of the US. He is making a disingenuous argument via rhetoric to try and score political points.

If he wants to argue what you're saying he is arguing, then he should do that. Instead, he is using a town that broadly disagrees with his position, as a pawn in a game of politics.

Perhaps in your bending over backwards to defend Ted, you didn't actually think about how else he could have made his point, in a clearer and more genuine way.

Quote:

Quote:Plus, (and maybe the favorite comment I've seen) that doesn't even get into the fact that Cruz openly supported throwing out the electoral votes from Pittsburg. So does he actually care about what Pittsburg's citizens want if he is so willing to throw away their voice?

Wtf does that have to do with price of tea in China? Sounds to me like you lifted some half assed 'attack Cruz comments from any angle' piece and are parroting them.

What does Ted, seemingly speaking for the people of Pittsburg, have to do with Ted actively fighting to keep the voice of the people of Pittsburg unheard?

I'll let you do the math there, it's quite easy.

Quote:

Quote:Again, my comment was clearly about his disingenuous comments.

yes, how dare he use Pittsburgh as an example. Dayton would have solved all your problems above from what I can see.

You are stretching for some hit shots there, lad. Of course we should expect some treatise on Pittsburgh from you now to prove how germane and on point your pitch is.... 3... 2.... 1.....

I mean, yeah, he should know what people want. Imagine me saying something like "The people of Alabama have been fighting for stricter gun control laws, and I, the Senator from Vermont, will not let the Senator from Texas go against their will."

It's fricken idiotic and disingenuous, just like Cruz's statement. But I'm glad his shallow and rhetorically bad statement gets your gears turning. It explains why he keeps winning races in Texas.