"I think it's the party engaging in voter fraud [1] throughout the country, and the one that tried to impeach the president when someone from the other side won [2], and the one that literally fled the state so that the legislature didn't have quorum and couldn't pass legislation [3], even though they were a clear minority. Or the one that falsely accused a supreme court nominee of rape [4], in an unprecedented move. I could go on."
It's evident to me that people of all political bents in this country are extremely tribalistic, and none of the tribes count many saints among their numbers.
Citations added simply to highlight that I'm not pulling any of this out of thin air:
[1] https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/impeac...
[3] https://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133847336/wis-democratic-lawm...
[4] https://reason.com/2018/11/05/brett-kavanaugh-due-process-fa...
I almost said exactly the same thing you just did. I have absolutely no clue which "side" he's talking about.
Both parties have started and engaged in needless wars, both parties spread falsehoods and start witch hunts, both parties are corrupt and suck down tax payer dollars without providing value in return.
Do you really think not a single Republican has critical thinking skills? That of course is incorrect, just as the opposite statement about Democrats would be.
That's not even touching hot button issues that are legitimately subjective or at least have no clear answer (like abortion).
It's best not to dehumanize those you don't agree with and instead realize that organizations as large and powerful as the DNC/GOP are almost inherently corrupt.
Seems like that's not at all what he said. He said you'd have to lack critical thinking ability to equate the two parties.
> The Republicans are blatantly criminal and far far more obstructive and disruptive.
Ironically, perhaps, I think you've misread his comment, and mine, and overextended your own argument.
"Criminal" is less subjective, but I just don't think it's true. I'm unaware of any kind of criminal behavior that Republicans get accused of but Democrats don't.
Nixon telling South Vietnam he would give them a better deal if they dragged their feet during a peace negotiation with his political rival.
Trump withholding military aid from Ukraine unless they made a public statement about an investigation into his political rival.
What are the comparable accusations against the Democrats?
As a rule of thumb: if your source is New York Post, you should try looking elsewhere.
It documents far beyond any doubt massive corruption and treason.
The Chinese deal was having Kerry approve a deal where China got access to restricted US military technology.
Articles documenting the Biden kid's shady "equity fund", which is partially owned by the Chinese government, have been ongoing for many years in a variety of media. They were particularly popular in 2015-16 when the media was trashing the Bidens because they wanted Hillary to get the nomination.
> The company website in 2016 reported that Bohai Capital managed the 20 Billion RMB ($2.8 billion) fund. [..] business registration filings in China list Hunter Biden and James Bulger as key officials at Bohai Harvest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BHR_Partners
So he is a 'key official' at a fund with billions of dollars of Chinese investment. But you find that claim 'false' because his lawyer states that they only raised $4.2 million, during some unspecified period of time, from unspecified sources, and explicitly declined to give any details. Being a lawyer, I'm sure his statement is technically correct. Given all the other sources, I'm also sure it's utterly misleading.
Of course, the available information allows one to believe, not believe, or assign significantly differing severity to these, and I do, but I wasn't aware of this before, so thanks.
[1] https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jul/18...
Manofstick incorrectly suggested that the Politifact article applied to your post, but it looks to me like Politifact itself did an exemplary job. They evaluated the specific claim that a meeting happened, which was made by a conservative pundit, and found it false, which is consistent with the evidence they present and all other evidence I found in my brief poke through google.
That party has ~100 million voters/sympathizers in this country.
Surely you can see that it would be controversial among them?
If you hang out in online forums, for either side, it can be eerie how they both describe the other side like you just described Republicans.
The topic we are discussing is moral grandstanding on social media. The comment I replied to suggested that only one "side" is guilty of this behavior. I'm interpreting a "side" as the supporters of particular party and their actions on social media, and not the policies and actions of the party's politicians. I believe there are people on both sides of the spectrum that routinely cringe at the behavior of those they agree with. There are many staunch Republicans that wish to distance themselves from the social policies of their constituents. Likewise, there are Democrats that are unfairly given stigmatizing labels from their peers for having fiscally conservative views. Both "sides" are guilty of tribal tendencies, ignoring any possibility of nuance, and pigeon-holing "centrists" into Team Red or Blue. And I'm not distancing myself to relish in my own smug either, I've been guilty of this as well.
Just like with football, neither side likes the guy that supports both teams when it's convenient.
But as for you, you seem to be playing language lawyer with the GP's words, to try to find a sliver of a way to accuse him/her of lying. Why?
See https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/19/apollo-15-astronaut-anti-tru...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail#Leg...
Your Wiki citation doesn't mention any link of a connection between Pelosi and the HSR, nor does a Google or DDG search turn up any mention, outside of anonymous blog posts all citing each other.
The genesis of Anti-Trumpism was the Nopublicans. It was the official party line of the GOP during the Obama era to simply vote "no" on everything he tried to pass, even when he was trying to implement GOP policies, because they wanted to (a) make him a 1-term president, and (b) when that failed to limit his successes. In contrast, the Democrats actually worked with Bush and Bush Sr before him on domestic and foreign policy, and have worked with their GOP counterparts on such during Trump's presidency.
My friend, 2 wrongs don’t make a right. I admire(d) Democrats for their pragmatism and I loathe Republicans for their lack of it. I’m not defending Republicans or Conservatives, only pointing out that what we need is fresh blood.
We can simultaneously see that partisan politics isn't completely rational and also observe that one side, for various reasons, is working that irrationality harder than the other.
As another reply to you has shown, it's very easy to find specific differences and elevate them to an all-encompassing explanation, if that's how you decide you want to look at things.
My anecdotal evidence bears this out. Progressives tend to be far more intolerant of opposing viewpoints than conservatives.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/majority-of-democrats-at-...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_...
Yes, in all votes, by percentage, more democrats opposed the civil rights act than did republicans.
Earlier, the progressive movement was founded on, among other things, eugenics (sterilization and abortion) of undesirable people, such as minorities and disabled. The progressive movement has since changed its tune.
Minority groups clearly aren't using history to pick roommates they would feel comfortable with.
Yes I'm sure that's why all those Democrats are upset at tearing down Confederate/traitor statues...
Definitely the same party.
I was responding to the idea that minorities were using history to choose their roommates, and how if that were the case, it would not be so clear cut.
The Progressive party had followers in its own right, as well as those in both the Democratic and Republican party, at least until Theodore Roosevelt left the Republican party in 1912.
Among the progressive movements goals were getting women the right to vote, and disenfranchising black voters. The philosophies of eugenics, and obsession with purity, were in fact an inspiration for those people who would eventually attempt to purify Germany during the Nazi reign.
Although much has changed in the progressive movement in the years since, the application of eugenics through abortion to eliminate undesirables has not (from my other comment, see Iceland).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
> As a philosophy, it is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.
That is pretty much the antithesis of conservative, to be sure. However, keep in mind that none of that could have described the Republican party of old. The abolitionist movement and civil rights movement had a lot of support from conservatives for religious reasons. Martin Luther King Jr's message of unity was heard on multiple levels.
That definition of progressivism does still tie fairly closely to what a lot of Democrats would identify with, I think. Unfortunately, eugenics is still alive and well within the progressive movement- consider, for example, Iceland's attempt at eradicating Down's Syndrom by aborting babies. If you were to ask most people with Down's syndrom whether their condition would have been improved had they been aborted, they would disagree.
[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/support-for-same-sex-ma...
Is the takeaway from this that holocaust deniers are more accepting people?
Also, instead of whining, consider critiquing the substance of anything I said.
This is hardcoded in us.