• ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 month ago

      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).

    • missingno@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      48
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

        • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Nah, it’s just a few legitimately bad actors and a few naive folks. Most people here are pretty reasonable but it’s hard to remember the guy dressed normally that walked past you three days ago while you will always remember the dude in the thong onesie holding a sign saying the great old ones are coming back any day to battle the frost giants.

        • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          27
          ·
          1 month ago

          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

        • missingno@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          27
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • davidagain@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            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?

            • missingno@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.

              • davidagain@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                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.