1) Are questions in the form of "How does X set of political views explain Y conundrum/controvercy/objection" on-topic and welcome?
As a random example, would the following question of the type:
There is a popular argument made that quality of life (based on various factors listed below) is better in Cuba (or $insert-your-own-leftist-government-country) compared to, say, USA.
How do the people making such argument explain the fact that citizens of $country frequently try to - legally and not - immigrated to USA, whereas there are virtually no citizens/residents of USA who choose to immigrate to that country despite the claimed quality-of-life gap?
Update: just to be clear, I use "Country X" here in meta, the real SE question would of course pertain to a specific country.
Another question of the type would be:
There is a popular argument made that quality of life (based on various factors) is better in ($insert-your-own-leftist-government-country) compared to, say, USA. A usual example is comparison to Cuba, made a couple of times on this site.
While quality of life is usually calculated in objective manner, based on $statistics, what are the efforts made by the people citing such statistics to ensure that (a) the statistics are not manipulated by the central controlling government in countries that don't have freedom of the press and independent professionals collecting and reporting them; and (b) That such statistics are designed to compare apples to apples, methodologically?
2) Bonus question: If such questions ARE acceptable, what do we consider good and acceptable forms of answering and commenting on such? E.g. would answers from opposite ends of political spectrum's views be considered welcome/valid (e.g. explaining that "Side X claims that the answer is THIS, while in truth that's an invalid argument because of M, N and O objections")?