I don’t know who you are targeting with the “democrats” in this meme,
When told by Very Interested Nonvoters that Biden not being Trump isn’t enough, many people choose to list his accomplishments and/or point out that many of ‘Biden’s’ policies are longstanding US policy that would be unlikely to be changed quickly by any candidate. The Very Interested Nonvoters then say that having so many good accomplishments to praise is propaganda and proof of why they shouldn’t vote for Biden.
There’s no winning with these nonvoters, because they’re not arguing in good faith.
‘Biden’s’ policies are longstanding US policy that would be unlikely to be changed quickly by any candidate.
As an outsider, this is the first time I’m hearing this rhetoric being used to dismiss accomplishments done specifically thanks to a president, especially with their contemporary competitors in consideration. Still, nothing unexpected.
Edit/Addition (submitted the reply in the middle by mistake): I don’t think the intention is muddying that here, tho. Fanatics and show people exaggerating support and diminishing or downplaying mistakes to sweep the bad appearances under the rug do exist in both sides. My gripe with the meme, maybe I’m taking it more literally than it is, is that the criticism about the exaggerating and double standards is reflected to the regular, at least critically thinking democrat voter base.
It’s like, man, if someone wants to say Biden is bad person for supporting longstanding US policy, I’m not gonna contradict them. I have my own axes to grind there. But in choosing who to vote for? The fact that’s longstanding US policy unlikely to be changed quickly by ANY realistic candidate means that the issue is, or at least should be, discarded in that electoral calculus.
Yeah, I’m not feeling at a loss for learning about such an argument being used to refute such out of ordinary policies. It is silly enough to warrant not hearing it. I mean, if you disregard the latest, U.S. nukes being maintained and upgraded with billions of dollars of cost being a longstanding U.S. policy and not one particular to anyone being the president, I can understand it.
When told by Very Interested Nonvoters that Biden not being Trump isn’t enough, many people choose to list his accomplishments and/or point out that many of ‘Biden’s’ policies are longstanding US policy that would be unlikely to be changed quickly by any candidate. The Very Interested Nonvoters then say that having so many good accomplishments to praise is propaganda and proof of why they shouldn’t vote for Biden.
There’s no winning with these nonvoters, because they’re not arguing in good faith.
As an outsider, this is the first time I’m hearing this rhetoric being used to dismiss accomplishments done specifically thanks to a president, especially with their contemporary competitors in consideration. Still, nothing unexpected.
Edit/Addition (submitted the reply in the middle by mistake): I don’t think the intention is muddying that here, tho. Fanatics and show people exaggerating support and diminishing or downplaying mistakes to sweep the bad appearances under the rug do exist in both sides. My gripe with the meme, maybe I’m taking it more literally than it is, is that the criticism about the exaggerating and double standards is reflected to the regular, at least critically thinking democrat voter base.
It’s like, man, if someone wants to say Biden is bad person for supporting longstanding US policy, I’m not gonna contradict them. I have my own axes to grind there. But in choosing who to vote for? The fact that’s longstanding US policy unlikely to be changed quickly by ANY realistic candidate means that the issue is, or at least should be, discarded in that electoral calculus.
Yeah, I’m not feeling at a loss for learning about such an argument being used to refute such out of ordinary policies. It is silly enough to warrant not hearing it. I mean, if you disregard the latest, U.S. nukes being maintained and upgraded with billions of dollars of cost being a longstanding U.S. policy and not one particular to anyone being the president, I can understand it.