The last time this country had a balanced budget it was Democrat.
Not even balanced - Clinton produced a surplus during his last couple of years in office. Had we continued on that path, we would now be debt-free as a nation, instead of in debt to the tune of $35 fucking trillion (equivalent to a full seven years of tax revenues).
what’s on offer is simply the Dem agenda with a younger change of guard
See, that’s what I’m not thrilled about.
You want a party that works for the rich and corporations, blows up the budgets recklessly, and thinks the low and middle classes are a resource to be used and drained: Republicans.
While we are on this spicy topic today, someone please remind me, what did Jill Stein do?
You’re only arguing the “I’d vote for a ham sandwich to keep the GOP from power” side. You don’t need to argue that part, we all know this, and it isn’t what the person you’re replying to was asking.
No one even said anything about Jill Stein here, bringing her up now feels like a very bad faith argument.
Yep. I agree with you 100% and is why I’ve tried to stop engaging regarding politics on this site. It just seems like 99% of the posters are posting in bad faith, or insane levels of naivety. Perfection the enemy of good personified.
90% of my comment was to explicitly say what Democrats do
To which their response was “yeah, that’s not exciting, we’ve seen it before”, they addressed it. You didn’t need to write out all of those words when you’d already summed it up well with “basic democrat”
Being a Democrat does not make you an inherently great president, it makes you the not-shit option
So, when asked for an argument that’s void of any anti-trump points you basically said “they’re Democrats. Plus they’re not trump!”, which isn’t an answer and includes the thing they said not to
Why stop there? Throw in some “both sides” stuff too.
Lol, “any criticism of the Democrats is right wing infiltration” is some shit taking for sure
I didn’t feel the need to go over the DNC point-by-point. I said the Dem agenda is what I’m not thrilled about.
Do I have to go point-by-point before I can ask why you felt the need to bring up the Republicans and even Jill Stein at all when it’s clear that wasn’t the question being asked? We all know they’re bad, but the fact that it seems like the only way to talk about the DNC is to keep reminding us that they’re not the other guys, you were explicitly asked to actually say what’s good about Kamala without doing that.
Asks for good points about Kamala Harris without mentioning any bad points about republicans. Gets lots of substantial points and a throwaway about Stein. Ignores all the points about democrats and greys very cross about mentioning Stein once at the end.
What conclusions am I to draw? You just hate it when other people don’t follow the letter of your laws,even the ones you didn’t say out loud? That you hate discussing bad points about Kamala’s opponents? That people can tell you benefits of voting for Kamala as much as they like, you’ll never hear any of it and you’ll still assert that no one can come up with any?
I didn’t ignore what you said, I responded by saying I’m not thrilled about the DNC agenda. It’s all too little too slowly, without addressing underlying structural issues with capitalism. Did you need me to quote each line individually in order to say that?
What I don’t like is that even when the question is explicitly “Regardless of how bad the other side is, what’s actually good about the DNC?” you are incapable of not pivoting that question back to talking about how bad the other guys are. We know, but that wasn’t the question.
What I don’t like is that I can’t even say “I’m not thrilled about the DNC agenda” without having all kinds of accusations hurled in my face.
Correction, you can’t say “tell me good things” and ignore all the good things, then complain that there were no good things, without being called out on it.
deleted by creator
Not even balanced - Clinton produced a surplus during his last couple of years in office. Had we continued on that path, we would now be debt-free as a nation, instead of in debt to the tune of $35 fucking trillion (equivalent to a full seven years of tax revenues).
See, that’s what I’m not thrilled about.
You’re only arguing the “I’d vote for a ham sandwich to keep the GOP from power” side. You don’t need to argue that part, we all know this, and it isn’t what the person you’re replying to was asking.
No one even said anything about Jill Stein here, bringing her up now feels like a very bad faith argument.
deleted by creator
Yep. I agree with you 100% and is why I’ve tried to stop engaging regarding politics on this site. It just seems like 99% of the posters are posting in bad faith, or insane levels of naivety. Perfection the enemy of good personified.
To which their response was “yeah, that’s not exciting, we’ve seen it before”, they addressed it. You didn’t need to write out all of those words when you’d already summed it up well with “basic democrat”
Being a Democrat does not make you an inherently great president, it makes you the not-shit option
So, when asked for an argument that’s void of any anti-trump points you basically said “they’re Democrats. Plus they’re not trump!”, which isn’t an answer and includes the thing they said not to
Lol, “any criticism of the Democrats is right wing infiltration” is some shit taking for sure
It might not be right wing infiltration, but it sure is right wing talking points, whoever it’s coming from.
Sah yes, gotta shut down any criticism of glorious leader!
Fucking shit take
That’s not a denial, it’s just name calling.
I didn’t feel the need to go over the DNC point-by-point. I said the Dem agenda is what I’m not thrilled about.
Do I have to go point-by-point before I can ask why you felt the need to bring up the Republicans and even Jill Stein at all when it’s clear that wasn’t the question being asked? We all know they’re bad, but the fact that it seems like the only way to talk about the DNC is to keep reminding us that they’re not the other guys, you were explicitly asked to actually say what’s good about Kamala without doing that.
Asks for good points about Kamala Harris without mentioning any bad points about republicans. Gets lots of substantial points and a throwaway about Stein. Ignores all the points about democrats and greys very cross about mentioning Stein once at the end.
https://lemmy.world/comment/12851475
What conclusions am I to draw? You just hate it when other people don’t follow the letter of your laws,even the ones you didn’t say out loud? That you hate discussing bad points about Kamala’s opponents? That people can tell you benefits of voting for Kamala as much as they like, you’ll never hear any of it and you’ll still assert that no one can come up with any?
I didn’t ignore what you said, I responded by saying I’m not thrilled about the DNC agenda. It’s all too little too slowly, without addressing underlying structural issues with capitalism. Did you need me to quote each line individually in order to say that?
What I don’t like is that even when the question is explicitly “Regardless of how bad the other side is, what’s actually good about the DNC?” you are incapable of not pivoting that question back to talking about how bad the other guys are. We know, but that wasn’t the question.
What I don’t like is that I can’t even say “I’m not thrilled about the DNC agenda” without having all kinds of accusations hurled in my face.
Correction, you can’t say “tell me good things” and ignore all the good things, then complain that there were no good things, without being called out on it.