Quote:
Originally Posted by +rep_lol
lol no it's not! this whole thing started because trump is making an unreasonable and unpopular demand. if dems try to counter by also making unreasonable demands, then they become just as guilty of obstructing the process and the bothsides'ism continues the same as it ever was
-rep is trying to slip the bolded by because deep down he understands that the key to turning a negotiation into a political win is to force the Republicans to block
popular demands. It was not a mistake or abbreviation on his part to describe the Republican demands in terms of both reasonableness and popularity while subtly holding Democrat proposals to a different standard. He's reframing the argument so that people who overlook the shift are more likely to believe that he has a reasonable argument. He only cares about winning the debate though, not about developing a consensus on the issues through a good faith discussion. He's not worth engaging.
Also I should point out this is the generous interpretation. The other option is that he has no idea what he's talking about. His highlights over the last page are emphatically denying making strawman arguments, then making the strawiest of arguments in all caps in the very next sentence, and playing dumb regarding the legislative process as if a clean CR -> negotiated funding bill for the wall + huge Democratic priorities is impossible or somehow a loss for Democrats if the negotiated bill never happens and it ends with a clean CR. Of course if this is the case he's still not worth engaging.