Wait, wasn’t there like, Donald Trump in the middle?
In the middle of what, I didn’t watch the speech
Well, I remember for example Nancy Pelosi ripping a copy of Trump’s speech in half. There was a paywall in that article but they seemed to skip past anything like it.
1 Like
I think they’re just illustrating how much things have changed in the years since that incident in 2009, which of course includes the years Trump was in office. More of a then-and-now comparison than an attempt to detail all the steps in between.
3 Likes
Well, yeah, they’ve changed, that’s for sure. It would be interesting to see if there was any recognition of the Democrats’ complicity in that process.
1 Like
Eh, I think you’re overlooking the bigger point of the article by attempting to draw a partisan equivalency.
1 Like
As long as we’re guessing, I think you’re ignoring the political realities of the situation because of a partisan preference. I wasn’t able to read the article as I said.
No partisan preference here. Projecting, perhaps? I think the point they are making would be equally as valid if the roles of the parties involved in 2009 and 2023 were reversed, but we don’t exist in that universe. It is what it is.
1 Like
The Atlantic gives a couple of freebies if you register, Flipboard manages the passwords for me. But I don’t remember it mentioning Trump
It is fair to say that Pelosi added fuel to the fire, sure. Both parties are imperfect.
What’s interesting here is that the Dems saw it coming. They assumed they could count on it, and use it, and they did. Brilliant.
1 Like
Man, I made a point and you’re telling me crap about partisan preferences, so, no, I think it’s you who is projecting.
It seems to me that you would like to jump from 2009 to 2023 without considering the interim. I am saying that we should consider all of the facts over time. We exist in the universe in which we should consider all of the available facts.
I’ll try to find it! I’m not sure what you’re getting at otherwise. It’s not in question that the Dems are politically capable!
Careful, new guy. We do have rules of civility and moderators who enforce them. Please take a few minutes to cool off and read those rules.
Welcome to the forum, please try not to be too combative
1 Like
Let us be fair, the author of that article can’t include everything in the universe
I guess the point of the article was the masterstroke based on the expectation that the GOP crazies would call him a liar, based on past precedent. In that case, no need to mention every SOTU protest
Edit: looking again and thinking about it, the point of the article was to report on the speech. The introduction helps to establish that things have changed and dems have learned, i guess
2 Likes
The Atlantic paywall is pathetic… 
2 Likes
I missed it was Frum lol
Fruuuuuuuum!
2 Likes
Couldn’t have been that hard to see coming from that crew. I wouldn’t call it brilliant, but it was well-played in the current climate.
1 Like
This. A simple then-and-now comparison that would have worked regardless of the parties involved to set up the story. It’s not a historical piece trying to “consider the interim.” I mean, if this were Fox or MSNBC I could see operating under the assumption that it is a ham-fisted partisan piece, but The Atlantic isn’t going to distract from its point by opening with a partisan jab (let alone a random one from 2009). It’s a bizarre thing to assume here, IMO. And yes, their paywall sucks.
Well, it was pretty hard to imagine the weak sauce of this article while not being able to read it. Talk is cheap, we’ll see. If the entire point of Joe’s master plan was to bait the Republicans into not agreeing to kill SS and Medicare on the spot as they immediately and loudly objected to the suggestion of, uhh, good job I guess.
That’s not The Atlantic I know.
4 Likes