I'm open to reasonable criticism like yours appears to be.
It's not wrong to mention past given that past has great chances of returning as future. Not just in US context, but in most electoral democracies.
By not discussing issues objectively the article just reads like another NYT, MSNBC rant. Sure be my guest and go ahead but we know what the credibility of that approach is.
The article is about current events. The discussion is objective.
Your desire to bring past events into the discussion is irrelevant. That’s not what objective means. Comparing things to other things is relativism, not objectivity.
You’re just grasping at straws, but your arguments aren’t even logically consistent. I really don’t understand how someone can get in so deep that their thought process starts trying to rationalize things away like this.
It's the authors choice to make it a current affairs discussion but it being an important constitutional, free speech one as they argue.
When there's two big parties both enjoying power in cycles, pretending that issues started on 21st Jan 2025 is not a clever way of convincing anyone other than the already converted.
It's not wrong to mention past given that past has great chances of returning as future. Not just in US context, but in most electoral democracies.
By not discussing issues objectively the article just reads like another NYT, MSNBC rant. Sure be my guest and go ahead but we know what the credibility of that approach is.