| There's an error of generalization here. There are some who would cut budgets in either case. These are politicians who are generally characterized as far right in the media. https://rollcall.com/2019/06/03/sen-rand-pauls-austere-budge... https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/17/rand-paul-oppose-s... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-ma... There may be others, but these are two politicians who come to the top of my mind. However, generally speaking there are many GOP members who are content to approve spending on their own partisan budgets. This is a well known issue. As for the accusation, "that's why they're being called far right" I had hoped to avoid this by stating, "I do not dispute the characterization..." The reasons why some are described as "far right" are beyond the scope of this discussion. I do not attribute motive. It is simply an observation of the status quo. They are described as far right here and elsewhere. They seek to limit the government's budget regardless of which way the pendulum is currently swinging. They maybe described as "far right" for any number of reasons. It is an entirely separate topic which could be debated at length. Perhaps you are projecting your own elaborate ideas, partisan biases and expectations into what was a simple and concise statement? Furthermore, you assume we should all implicitly understand your accusations and their frame of reference. Only by elaborating on why you feel it is a straw-man are we able to discuss this. Without elaboration we can only assume your intent, which more often that not leads to even more projection and partisan caricatures. Another interesting ambiguity is "semi-sophisticated". It could have meant that HN was too sophisticated for the stawman you alleged. Perhaps it meant that HN isn't sophisticated enough to read the sentence without inflammatory nonsense. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. |
It may indeed be an error to assume the HN audience is sophisticated enough to recognize bad faith comments, obvious political bias, or even logical fallacy given some of the authors it contains.