General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Tired of Malignant Amnesia Anti-Obama Syndrome [View all]TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)correction so when one chips in they can be seen as buying in
I fully grant interpretations of events may differ, my problem is when we pretend that the events didn't exist and question the veracity of the people who dare to acknowledge history and say they don't agree with your interpretation.
Logic requires that if one is purposely creating an impression that it is then going to be irrational to be upset that people believe the impression that was cultivated.
Why am I an asshole for believing what you know happened?
I honestly think folks are rationalizing here because in a nuts and bolts way the whole argument really doesn't make sense. Serious and consistent effort was put into an austerity program. He was supportive of the deal to have a binding committee and when the Republican sponsors for the binding austerity dropped because they knew they were pissing into the wind, he comes back with a nonbinding one, then it was the Catfood Commission and he appoints not only the odious Simpson but anti Social Security Democratic asshole Bowles, then we had the "gangs", then it was "the trigger" which predictably as fuck led to the sequester and thank God for Occupy and an election where nobody was going to do much else that stupid.
Then we see the many Rubinite and corporate hack appointments and it makes damn hard for me to buy this 3D chess stuff especially when nobody can actually articulate what it was even possible to gain that would be worth the cost.
It didn't happen because the votes weren't there just like none of the rest of the bullshit didn't have the votes.