Republicans are completely post-truth, but Democrats are at least occasionally willing to hold candidates to their record. The problem is that stuff the left views as disqualifying isn't that big of a deal to most centrist Democrats.
If the democrats are not post truth please explain how Coumo, the person with by far the worst material outcome in the coronavirus crisis, tops this list. To me, as an outsider, the democrats are post truth, but in a different way to republicans. They use talking points like "facts first" while they lie and manipulate statistics to match their worldview (see Kamala Harris votes 93% of the time with Bernie for an example of this).
"Well I mean, he did the best he could with the hand he'd been dealt."
If they acknowledge Medicaid cuts at all "he needed to free up the funds to attack Covid in other ways" (don't expect them to explain how that's supposed to work)
please explain how Coumo, the person with by far the worst material outcome in the coronavirus crisis, tops this list
Easy: no one gives a shit about primary candidates until a week or two before they vote. They definitely don't give a shit about a candidate who hasn't announced anything because the primary is four years out.
He's a name people know, so of course he gets mentioned.
The media is pushing him because twitter slapfights with Trump sell, and because he's a standard-issue capitalist Democrat who isn't going to rock any boats if elected.
they’re straight up pretending that Biden/Harris is tHe mOsT pRoGrEsSiVe tIcKeT yet
Because they are looking at their current positions, ignoring their record, limiting the scope to candidates nominated for president, and using the most charitable definition possible for "progressive." It's a bad argument, but it's at least based on some part of reality.
That's not the same as pointing to any bit of reality one doesn't like and calling it fake news.
So they don’t really hold candidates to their records
But sure, occasionally they do.
See? We can both be petty assholes who deliberately misread what the other is writing. Let's not do this.
The "occasionally" point is a big one, and it's not exclusively used on the left. Other candidates were attacked over their records in the primaries, and if you talk to your average Democrat about a candidate's record you're going to get a different response than if you talk to your average Republican. If you talk to a Democrat about Biden's shitty stance on climate change you'll get all sorts of excuses or attempted justifications, but at bottom they'll agree that climate change is a real problem. If you talk to a Republican about any Republican's shitty stance on the same issue, there's a good chance you'll get some denial of the reality of the base issue. Similarly, if you bring up Biden's "racial jungle" quote to a Democrat, they'll acknowledge the reality of the quote even if they try to defend it somehow. If you bring up some Trump quote to a Republican there's a good chance they'll claim he never said that, or that it's fake news, or that it's some Democratic hit job, etc.
If someone acknowledges the basic facts of reality you can educate them or reason with them. You can't do that with people who just write off stuff they don't like as fake.
Ask a Biden supporter about Tara Reade. How is discrediting and denying a story any different than saying “fake news”?
It's not. The difference is between pulling this with some things you don't like, and doing this with everything you don't like. If someone pulls this occasionally, it's frustrating and they're a piece of shit, but you can at least work with them the rest of the time and maybe bring them around. If someone pulls this every time there's something they don't like, how are you supposed to get anywhere with that?
Republicans are completely post-truth, but Democrats are at least occasionally willing to hold candidates to their record. The problem is that stuff the left views as disqualifying isn't that big of a deal to most centrist Democrats.
If the democrats are not post truth please explain how Coumo, the person with by far the worst material outcome in the coronavirus crisis, tops this list. To me, as an outsider, the democrats are post truth, but in a different way to republicans. They use talking points like "facts first" while they lie and manipulate statistics to match their worldview (see Kamala Harris votes 93% of the time with Bernie for an example of this).
"Well I mean, he did the best he could with the hand he'd been dealt."
If they acknowledge Medicaid cuts at all "he needed to free up the funds to attack Covid in other ways" (don't expect them to explain how that's supposed to work)
That's what I mean by the democrats being post truth, none of those reasons make any sense
Oh I wasn't disagreeing with you.
I know I was just commenting on the excuses, should have been more clear
Easy: no one gives a shit about primary candidates until a week or two before they vote. They definitely don't give a shit about a candidate who hasn't announced anything because the primary is four years out.
He's a name people know, so of course he gets mentioned.
Ok you got me there, still find interesting that the media pushed Coumo so hard when his initial covid response was a massive failure
The media is pushing him because twitter slapfights with Trump sell, and because he's a standard-issue capitalist Democrat who isn't going to rock any boats if elected.
deleted by creator
Because they are looking at their current positions, ignoring their record, limiting the scope to candidates nominated for president, and using the most charitable definition possible for "progressive." It's a bad argument, but it's at least based on some part of reality.
That's not the same as pointing to any bit of reality one doesn't like and calling it fake news.
deleted by creator
See? We can both be petty assholes who deliberately misread what the other is writing. Let's not do this.
The "occasionally" point is a big one, and it's not exclusively used on the left. Other candidates were attacked over their records in the primaries, and if you talk to your average Democrat about a candidate's record you're going to get a different response than if you talk to your average Republican. If you talk to a Democrat about Biden's shitty stance on climate change you'll get all sorts of excuses or attempted justifications, but at bottom they'll agree that climate change is a real problem. If you talk to a Republican about any Republican's shitty stance on the same issue, there's a good chance you'll get some denial of the reality of the base issue. Similarly, if you bring up Biden's "racial jungle" quote to a Democrat, they'll acknowledge the reality of the quote even if they try to defend it somehow. If you bring up some Trump quote to a Republican there's a good chance they'll claim he never said that, or that it's fake news, or that it's some Democratic hit job, etc.
If someone acknowledges the basic facts of reality you can educate them or reason with them. You can't do that with people who just write off stuff they don't like as fake.
It's not. The difference is between pulling this with some things you don't like, and doing this with everything you don't like. If someone pulls this occasionally, it's frustrating and they're a piece of shit, but you can at least work with them the rest of the time and maybe bring them around. If someone pulls this every time there's something they don't like, how are you supposed to get anywhere with that?