Yeah, because Steve Bannon is a Nazi.
Clinton and Schumer are mainstream Democrats. I happen to like them! In fact, most Democrats like them. So without offering any actual reasons to dislike them aside from "you should already know that they're terrible," you're making no effort to persuade anybody who doesn't already agree with you.
Right, but that's where we disagree. I don't like mainstream Democrats. I tolerate them on a means and ends basis. There's a whole other article on why we ought not to like them, but if you read Jacobin, you probably know that already, so for the sake of avoiding an enormous derail, the article pointing out that she associates with people it knows the article's audience dislikes is fair.
That's what I said. Do politicians have consistency? In general, no. If you don't like those politicians, as with Hillary, this lack of consistency is proof of their corrupt nature. If you do like these politicians, as with Bernie, this lack of consistency is proof of their ability to get things done and figure out where their constituents are at.
I disagree. I think Sanders has been relatively more consistent over his career than Clinton. Not completely consistent, but at the very least, more consistent. I value consistency very highly in politicians. As long as there are candidates who are more consistent than Gillibrand, I would be disinclined to vote for her.
I already responded to this. Jacobin should make more effort to avoid dog-whistling to the anti-Semitic left.
They're not, though. Pointing out Gillibrand has actively opposed measures to prevent settlement building is not dog-whistling, it's pointing out tacit support of apartheid.
That's why I read the article! To learn information! That's why I'm disappointed that it failed to provide any information. That is actually the job of news articles -- to give people information that may change their positions. It's just not the job of this article, because it isn't intended to change anyone's positions.
Not every article can provide all the information. Sometimes they have to rely on prior knowledge that they assume the audience knows. I don't explain to you every single one of my positions every time I post, I just assume that you know some stuff already. Here, they assume that the audience knows that most Democratic politicians are at best tolerable and that overall moneyed interests have had a significantly negative effect on American politics. The point of the article is to point out that, in that respect, Gillibrand is more of the same (which their audience may not know).
I mean, I explicitly called out that I thought one of the criticisms was potentially legitimate, and the presence of all the other less legitimate criticisms damaged it. There is nothing I can do to prove my motivations to you, so if you think I'm just being disingenuous, why bother responding?
That's true, and I apologize. Let me restate: I think you do this unintentionally. I think that your internal biases are such that you probably think you're giving this article a fair look, but you're actually barely examining it despite the fact you would probably agree with most of what had been written had it come from a source that you are otherwise disposed to.
We all do this. I do this, and I appreciate being called out on it (eventually!). So I'm doing it for you.
That's like the definition of a smear. Using true and sourced facts to paint a misleading image of a politician with the intention of damaging them. What do you think "smear" means?
It's not a misleading image. It leads one to an entirely accurate picture: Gillibrand is associated with widely disliked senior Democratic figures, has a wildly inconsistent political track record, has opposed efforts to block an apartheid regime from building illegal settlements, and more frequently meets with major financial lobbyists than most comparable Democratic figures. Which part of that is misleading?
