That is how you rationalize any criticism to Trump imho. Regardless you can't keep painting this as just the Dems being political. That clearly isn't so with members of his own party having some serious criticisms of Trump.
The Dems just kneejerk reject everything Trump proposes, and lyingly accuse him of things they know to be false.
The branch of Establishment Republicans likewise have ulterior motives, and attack Trump to leverage their own agenda (what they are trying to do I can barely speculate. Because without Trump the Republicans achieve nothing, and only serve to hurt their own re-election chances by obstructing any meaningful reforms.)
But yeah, I have to agree it isn't "Just the Democrats" to some degree. But even so, the Republicans still side with Trump on many issues, even as they attack him for ulterior reasons on others.
Conversely, for example, the Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction in 2009-2010, after Obama's Stimulus bill had failed to create jobs. So they proposed a "Stimulus 2" bill. Which was widely unpopular with voters. They focus-group tested different names, and lyingly re-named it a "Jobs bill" because "jobs" focus-tested the best with their sampling. But still no traction in getting it passed.
Dem leaders blamed "Republican obstructionism", so Mitch McConnell went on the Senate floor and said "Hey, if Democrats want to put this up for a vote, let's vote on it!" But as the liberal media on PBS reported, Harry Reid said there were "other priorities" and tabled the bill.
ONLY ON FOX NEWS was it reported that the Democrats (prior to Nov 2010) had overwhelming majorities in both houses, and could have passed the bill without a single Republican vote. But they blamed Republicans. The Fox News story also reported that the bill was unpopular even in many Democrat districts, and that Democrats didn't ram it through because it would have resulted in many of them not getting re-elected if they HAD used their majorities to vote for it without the GOP.
In the case of Trump, as I've said before, he is essentially an independent elected on the GOP ticket, and therefore has resistance from the party leadership on both sides. That doesn't make the Democrat partisanship less contemptible.
I believe I've been very clear in my criticism as well of the anti-Trump obstructionism within the GOP.
And who's criticism does count? Was all yours for any democrats be dismissed the same way? The standard you apply isn't an equal one.
See above. I think it is.
When I think news or pundit sources are fair and informative, I cite them.
When I think news or pundit sources are partisan and/or pure lies, I cite that, often with sources proving its false assertions.
