Saying that the awful things he does by choice is actually necessary things that he doesn’t like doing and would stop if he could IS defending him.
As is repeatedly trying to deflect to a completely different topic.
Let me bend it in neon for you one last time:
My analogy was NOT about Cuba. It was about the fact that presidents have the power to change longstanding foreign policy, contrary to what the person I was replying to was implying.
Secondarily (that means later and less importantly), it was a comparison of one president who sometimes had the guts to go against tradition and the will of rich and powerful pressure groups and one who doesn’t.
Saying that the awful things he does by choice is actually necessary things that he doesn’t like doing and would stop if he could
Thank goodness it wasn’t my argument.
the fact that presidents have the power to change longstanding foreign policy
correct. And my response was…? Let me restate it because maybe it wasn’t clear:
What a president can do and what a president ought to do in changing policy are two different things and bringing up the fact that change was able to occur in a place with low stakes (cuba: very low stakes) is not equivalent to the policy change that needs to occur in Israel (very high stakes). It’s not apples to apples, is it?
Saying that the awful things he does by choice is actually necessary things that he doesn’t like doing and would stop if he could IS defending him.
As is repeatedly trying to deflect to a completely different topic.
Let me bend it in neon for you one last time:
My analogy was NOT about Cuba. It was about the fact that presidents have the power to change longstanding foreign policy, contrary to what the person I was replying to was implying.
Secondarily (that means later and less importantly), it was a comparison of one president who sometimes had the guts to go against tradition and the will of rich and powerful pressure groups and one who doesn’t.
Thank goodness it wasn’t my argument.
correct. And my response was…? Let me restate it because maybe it wasn’t clear:
What a president can do and what a president ought to do in changing policy are two different things and bringing up the fact that change was able to occur in a place with low stakes (cuba: very low stakes) is not equivalent to the policy change that needs to occur in Israel (very high stakes). It’s not apples to apples, is it?