Sure, but on average when some self proclaimed leftist’s opening is “Democrats did a bad thing” in a vacuum my immediate assumption is they’re a campist/tankie, accelerationist, or a rightwing psyop and my instinct is to immediately challenge them (most of the time… sometimes its me critiquing the dems)
Sometimes it turns out they’re giving an earnest critique but usually not.
I’m the arbiter of who I trust is arguing coherently or in good faith and I am ultimately not trusting of the average internet poster by default.
I’ve been arguing on dedicated internet debate spaces for a very very large portion of my life and I have a good eye for when someone isn’t worth being taken seriously.
There have been many at various times, and it also depends on your values, obviously. It also depends on whether you’re looking at things in specific times as opposed to generally.
There have been many times when many mainstream Democrats were pro-censorship but most Republicans were not.
Then there are other situations that I think are edge cases and therefore interesting. For example, Obamacare did make life better for real numbers of Americans, but it also guaranteed that we wouldn’t be looking at universal healthcare for a few more decades, if ever. And that was a law pushed for and passed by Democrats. Of course you could argue that it’s better than nothing, maybe it was, but medical debt is far worse now than it ever has been, and predictably so. So then you wonder why Democrats pushed for it, and we all know the answer to that, corruption. Of course they would say that it’s the best they could do, but is that even true? We’ll never find out, cuz they didn’t try.
So how do you rate rate these gray area situations? Things that are better than nothing but worse than a lot, but the politicians are only voting for them because they are corrupt.
Evil policies supported by democrats vs evil policies supported by republicans
what evil polices do dems support that the republicans don’t?
Policies can be checked on both sides
Sure, but on average when some self proclaimed leftist’s opening is “Democrats did a bad thing” in a vacuum my immediate assumption is they’re a campist/tankie, accelerationist, or a rightwing psyop and my instinct is to immediately challenge them (most of the time… sometimes its me critiquing the dems)
Sometimes it turns out they’re giving an earnest critique but usually not.
What in the word salad are you talking about.
Leftists say funding Israel’s war crimes is bad. Check mark in both columns.
That’s not a critique of democrats, that’s a critique of a portion of democrats and all of republicans.
It’s a critique of the democrats that were in the running for president
Who made you the arbiter of another person’s earnestness? Can you read minds? And if you’re the one criticizing the Dems, does someone else take over?
I’m the arbiter of who I trust is arguing coherently or in good faith and I am ultimately not trusting of the average internet poster by default.
I’ve been arguing on dedicated internet debate spaces for a very very large portion of my life and I have a good eye for when someone isn’t worth being taken seriously.
I’ll take your word for it.
There have been many at various times, and it also depends on your values, obviously. It also depends on whether you’re looking at things in specific times as opposed to generally.
There have been many times when many mainstream Democrats were pro-censorship but most Republicans were not.
Then there are other situations that I think are edge cases and therefore interesting. For example, Obamacare did make life better for real numbers of Americans, but it also guaranteed that we wouldn’t be looking at universal healthcare for a few more decades, if ever. And that was a law pushed for and passed by Democrats. Of course you could argue that it’s better than nothing, maybe it was, but medical debt is far worse now than it ever has been, and predictably so. So then you wonder why Democrats pushed for it, and we all know the answer to that, corruption. Of course they would say that it’s the best they could do, but is that even true? We’ll never find out, cuz they didn’t try.
So how do you rate rate these gray area situations? Things that are better than nothing but worse than a lot, but the politicians are only voting for them because they are corrupt.
So can you name a few?
Drone strike deaths under Obama vs under Trump?