Protecting Law Enforcement Personnel. One of the Department of Justice’s top priorities is protecting law enforcement at the federal, state, and local levels who protect us all. This includes aggressively investigating the all-too-common instances of violence against and obstruction of law enforcement, seeking the death penalty for those who perpetrate capital crimes against law enforcement, and backing and promoting the efforts of law enforcement when they are subjected to unfair criticism or attack.
Both sides, amiright fellow citizens of the nation just north of the gulf of America?
While conservatives are obviously worse than liberals in just about every way, I don’t think rejecting the “both sides” argument in such a general way is a legitimate argument either.
It takes two to tango, and the Democratic party obviously deserves some of the criticism for the current state we find ourselves in. Mainly in their passivity in response to the rise of fascism in the conservative party.
The whole point of ‘both sides’ is both sides doing the same kinds of things.
One party failing to stop a coup because they try (and fail) to work within the legal system and making poor choices is the opposite of the side that is blatantly breaking the system. It isn’t even close to ‘both sides’. What a terrible take.
Yes, and in some areas this is a legitimate argument. Both parties are slaves to donors and the capital class, and have rarely disagreed with things like how we handle things at a geopolitical scale.
Right, but that’s also ignoring the decades of thirdway politics that allowed the conservative party to position themselves to do a coup in the first place.
I’m not saying that both sides is a legitimate argument for every topic, but it also shouldn’t be off-handedly rejected in every scenario either.
It should be dismissed because it is a false equivalence tactic used to fool people like you into blaming both parties for the actions of one party.
Lol, I’ve repeatedly said it’s not equivalent, and not a legitimate argument when utilized in generality. I’ve just noticed people like yourself are increasingly utilizing it to rebuff all criticism for the Democratic party.
Wanting to discuss nuance in an argument isn’t a blatant acceptance of an argument. You’re just trying to force a false dichotomy.
I am literally saying that ‘both sides’ is ALWAYS a false equivalence.
ALWAYS.
Both sides can have overlap in things they do, but that doesn’t make blaming ‘both sides’ valid.
Being ineffective at stopping something isn’t the same thing as enabling.
Lol.
You’ve got your fingernails dug into a hair-thin crack here.
You might do well to stand back a bit and ask yourself why you’re so desperate to absolve the Democrats of blame.
What the fuck are you even talking about?
Don’t bother, this dude is completely unable to understand anything that resembles a nuanced opinion.
Apparently the Democratic party is completely blameless for anything that’s ever happened, even when they vote in complete consensus with Republicans.
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.
Then you are either misinformed or blatantly lying?
There are plenty of examples of both parties overwhelmingly agreeing on certain topics. An obvious one is the vote to go to war in Afghanistan, or the Patriot act…
You’re claiming that conservatives and Democrats haven’t ever agreed upon anything that might be reasonably criticized…
Again, you’re just thinking in absolutes.
Me:
You:
I’m going to go talk to a brick wall as that is more likely to be productive.
deleted by creator