This is pure hackery, though. You're saying that if one single Democrat is bad, they all are. But for some reason, you don't apply the same logic to any other group. You're not making a good-faith effort to understand and accurately describe the situation; you're just looking for some flimsy pretext to justify your irrational partisanship.
Hackery for who? I don't support either of the corrupt parties. You're the one being a partisan hack for the Dems. They can do no wrong in your book. Whether its paying Fusion GPS for a fabricated peepee dosier, lying to the FBI or hiding the servers so the FBI can't confirm their fabrications, you don't care. Its "go, blue team, GO!" Its the definition of partisan hackery.
Do you think a liberal Democrat would win Manchin's seat? Your logic is if Manchin opposes the rest of the party's agenda, all Democrats are bad, but if all Republicans also oppose the agenda, they're completely innocent. It's ridiculously dishonest hackery.
No. My logic is that if the democrats intentionally help an extreme right winger into their party because they dont think they can win based on the merits of their platform, they don't get to make excuses for being politically impotent when that guy always votes with republicans. They made their own bed; they are comfy in their blanket of excuses. If they wanted to get policy passed, they can either make specific concessions and deals that favor West Virginia to get it done or stop supporting his candidacy. Absent that, they don't actually care about passing the policies they campaigned on.
Once again, the Republicans are just as bad as the democrats; the difference is the democrats promised a lot of things that they dont deliver on. Joe Manchin is just the fall guy they use for public opinion while they conveniently dont pass any of the policy objectives that conflict with their donors interests. They are all bad because of that; Joe Manchin is just one of their many convenient excuses. If it wasn't him, it would be the parliamentarian. They don't actually care. They had the opportunity to pass the $15 minimum wage without Joe Manchin. All it would have taken was for Harris to overrule the parliamentarian and she chose not to because they honestly dont care about increasing the minimum wage; its just theater for the public.
Therefore the left should support McConnell being in power? Again, it makes no sense if one takes your thinking at face value. It's only understandable as an expression of brainless partisanship.
It doesnt matter who is actually in power. Progressive change will not happen because both parties are bought by interests that oppose it. Republicans in power - no progressive change. Then the dems use that to try and fear-monger voters into electing them. Then Democrats in power - no progressive change. It honestly doesn't make much difference which party controls the government; neither party is willing or able to pass the most popular policies the American people want - because neither of them actually want to.
That's not partisanship; they both suck. Partisanship would be always advocating and voting for one side even though they cant get anything done. Partisanship is making excuses for one sides impotence and defending them for not doing what they say they're going to do.
Um, what about you? Dore? Greenwald? You're still saying that both parties are the same, FFS!
When it comes to progressive policies, the outcome of electing either party IS the same. Neither party makes any progressive changes when they are in power.
How are the democrats treating refugees at the border right now? Why isn't AOC down there crying for the cameras? How's the illegal occupation of Syria going? Why are we trying to do regime change in Ethiopia right now? Why are we drone striking Somalia, Syria and Iraq?
Both parties are pro-illegal wars of offense. Neither party passes progressive agendas even though one party pretends to support them during campaign season. Both parties take bribes from the same large corporate interests. Everything else is just pro-wrestling style public theater.
Um, Trump wanted to ban Twitter for fact-checking him, and the party totally fell in line, pushing this ridiculous "platform/publisher" nonsense (apparently Republicans think that the First Amendment shouldn't apply to publishers now!).
Twitter is a Platform, not a Publisher. Their job is to host a conversation, not to interrupt it. They literally get blanket legal immunity from liability for their content specifically because it is understood that they are not the publisher. Imagine you were on a phone call and every time you said something that the phone company disagreed with, a bot would interrupt your call and tell you the phone company's official position on the matter. That's not how phone companies or platforms are supposed to operate. They exist to facilitate discourse, not to manipulate it.
If they want to edit like a publisher, then they should be considered publishers and be legally responsible for everything published on their platform. Barring that, they should know their place and stay the fuck out of other people's conversations.
I remember you saying that Twitter shouldn't be allowed to enforce its own rules as it sees fit. So make sure to add another exception. You don't believe in freedom of speech if speech upsets Republicans.
Completely braindead take right here. Freedom of speech is an
individual right. Such an important one in fact that it is protected by the very first amendment to the constitution, which bars state interference in matters of speech.
This might be difficult for you to understand, but corporations aren't human beings; they are inanimate. Corporations cant talk.
This comes back once again to all the hearings the tech giants kept getting summoned to on capitol hill. The democrats kept threatening them to censor their platforms of face regulation. They didn't want to, but complied under threat of the government. There is no practical difference between state censorship and private censorship at the behest of the state. Its immoral to anyone with principles in line with freedom and constitutional freedoms.
But look at all the partisan hacks. "They're a private company; they can do as they please!" When did liberals become so pro-corporate power??? Oh, that's right! It was the second those corporations started taking power and using it to forward the democrat agenda.
I oppose excessive corporate power because I have principles. It's bad whether it suits republicans or democrats because it in some way diminishes the power of the individual.
And yet you claim there is no difference in the parties? WTF?
When it comes to policy outcomes, it doesn't matter who is in power. Both parties answer to the same corporate overlords at this point. I'd like to vote for the anti-war party that invests in educating its people, talking care of the poor and eliminating extreme wealth and power disaprities......oh, wait. We don't have one of those as an option.
Biden is basically carrying out most of the same foreign policy and border policy as Trump did, he just isn't being crucified by the Democratic party or the MSM because they are all partisan hacks.
Unless it comes from the right. Even after the Mueller report, you're still defending Trump.
Are you talking about the report that found insufficient evidence for the russiagate conspiracy theory? The one that was based on a fake peepee tape dosier paid for by the clinton campaign as opposition research?
Not defending anything Trump actually said or did, but i dont think he was being blackmailed by the Russian government. He was harder on the Russian government than the Obama administration. Russiagate was a hoax.
There were a million things Trump could have been RIGHTFULLY impeached for, like violating the emolument clause. But democrats would rather make things up than impeach him for corruption because its corruption they engage in aswell.