You are incorrect. A nationwide movement of judges, lawyers and activists actively halting the President’s will and chosen policy is not a “tiny crack”. Billions of dollars redirected is not a “tiny crack”.
““Big” or “small” is relative, which was exactly my original point.”
you are incorrect.
your original point was that the cracks showing in Trump’s administration were tiny cracks, which is objectively false.
then you changed it to say that the cracks were relatively tiny compared to a vague, unquantifiable overwhelming opposition, which is a different comparison (those are the goal posts you changed), which is also objectively untrue, as shown above.
now you are pretending that an objective statement is the same as a relative statement, which it objectively is not.
you don’t have to hide behind reinterpreting what you said; accept your mistake and move on.
“that’s all the interest I have in arguing with someone about this.”
obviously untrue, as you concocted a reimagining of events and posted them.
“I am not talking to you” he claims, talking to you.
You are incorrect. A nationwide movement of judges, lawyers and activists actively halting the President’s will and chosen policy is not a “tiny crack”. Billions of dollars redirected is not a “tiny crack”.
It is compared to what it’s up against.
But I’m glad you’re optimistic.
despite changing the goal posts, you are still incorrect; your uninformed anxiety is why I have to be realistic.
I changed nothing. “Big” or “small” is relative, which was exactly my original point.
But anyway, that’s all the interest I have in arguing with someone about this. I hope you’re doing well.
““Big” or “small” is relative, which was exactly my original point.”
you are incorrect.
your original point was that the cracks showing in Trump’s administration were tiny cracks, which is objectively false.
then you changed it to say that the cracks were relatively tiny compared to a vague, unquantifiable overwhelming opposition, which is a different comparison (those are the goal posts you changed), which is also objectively untrue, as shown above.
now you are pretending that an objective statement is the same as a relative statement, which it objectively is not.
you don’t have to hide behind reinterpreting what you said; accept your mistake and move on.
“that’s all the interest I have in arguing with someone about this.”
obviously untrue, as you concocted a reimagining of events and posted them.
“I am not talking to you” he claims, talking to you.
“Tiny cracks” is absolutely a relative statement, and is in no way objective, what are you even talking about?
“tiny cracks” is an incorrect objective statement.
Nationwide movements, billions of dollars and presidential policy halts are objectively not “tiny cracks”.
“tiny cracks compared to the size of…”, is an example of a relative statement, which was not said in the original comment.
they later changed what they said, trying to change their original, incorrect statement.
doesn’t work for them when they have a public comment history, of course.
Ok
yup
Uh huh
sure