5 ms·
>sometimes stabs you in the back when it's convenient for them Your summary didn't support this analogy. I think you need to work on it. You mentioned that th
by perl4ever 5y ago
>sometimes stabs you in the back when it's convenient for them
Your summary didn't support this analogy. I think you need to work on it.
You mentioned that the Republicans repeatedly "stabbed" the Democrats, front, back, I dunno. Then after at least a quarter century of escalation, the Democrats (may have) retaliated.
I'm not arguing about how to describe history, you can have it your way. But the summary and the characterization just don't go together.
- naasking 5y agoYeah, no, you're not getting it. The Democrats and Republicans have no obligation to be nice to each other; arguably they shouldn't be. The "stabbing in the back" refers to how they treat their constituents, and in that regard, my analogy perfectly describes the situation, and this is why they're both terrible parties.
- perl4ever 5y ago>The "stabbing in the back" refers to how they treat their constituents, and in that regard, my analogy perfectly describes the situation, and this is why they're both terrible parties. Ok, I see that you think they are basically equally bad in how they treat their own constituents, but since their constituents want different things, I don't know why it matters. Imagine a simplistic political model where the country is divided into two exact halves that want to exterminate the other. It wouldn't make sense to switch sides no matter how ineffective your side is. If the other side is equally or more likely to carry out their plans, more trustworthy, has spiffier uniforms, better speakers, or whatever, that isn't a reason to support them.