Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So... One response turns my observation about Clinton into a "Yeah, but Romney!" (don't get whiplash kids), No actual addressing of what I said though.
You failed to note that I did not in any way dismiss your assessment of HRC.
I also didn't claim you did this. What I claimed is that you
deflected my assessment of HRC by saying "Romney too!".
Quote:
I simply noted I had the same feelings about Romney (which I think cost him votes) ; if you're so fucking smart you would have understood that I was touching on your assessment of HRC (might cost her votes). Way to actually take what you read and think before you respond as you claim you always do and we fail at so hard.
If you were actually trying to say "Yeah, that could cost her votes, but if she runs against Romney, it might just wash out because he has the same thing going for him too", then that is a valid response to my assessment. I didn't get that in your response though. Maybe I'm just jaded from years of people using language like that, not to engage in discussion, but to divert attention away from a topic they don't want to discuss, that I jumped a bit. If that's the case, then I do apologize. But surely you can also understand how one could get the impression that your post might just be about deflection? You didn't actually elaborate on the point at all.
I guess to me, an response that consists solely of "him too!" isn't much of a response. Having dealt with the whole "Bush did this too!" spin whenever someone on the right criticizes something Obama does has kinda soured me on that. In that case, it's pretty much always about getting the other guy to engage in an argument about Bush's actions, and not talking about Obama's. Which is kinda obviously the whole point. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that. Now, to be fair, your comment does have a lot more relevance because of the possibility of Romney facing Clinton, so I'll grant you that. It just wasn't clear that this is where you were going with it.