Quote:
Originally Posted by jim schmidt
If you'd complained about an Obama policy during an Obama administration, you'd have a valid complaint. However you've just proven that you didn't get it, and that you still don't.
Arguing about what a candidate might do is fair game. Arguing about what a president does is fair game. Arguing about what an elected official might do -- as if he already did it -- is just a strawman made of sour grapes.
|
Ding ding ding, here comes the logic train, last stop is you.
Of course this isn't an Obama administration yet. Speculation is all
anybody has at this point, and that goes for both sides.
However, given the man's past regarding the issue, logic would dictate that we can safely debate what he'll do once he takes office.
After all, isn't that what the entire premise of a democratic election is based on?
So, according to you, arguing about specifics of a president-elect's likely policy, based on quotes, past policies, and voting record, is not allowable because he's not in office yet.
Or, you're not open to criticism of your candidate. I've never seen somebody get so asshurt over intelligent discourse critical of their man-crush.