-4

Here is the post in question. This is the report I got for the reason it was closed:

Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.

The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about governments, policies and political processes as defined in the help center.

I really don't understand. I am simply asking why is it that the 2 main US political parties support opposite sides in an international conflict, and that too, the parties support nations that have ideolodies which the parties are sworn to fight. Looking at the article What topics can I ask about here?, it fits into the acceptable category: Matters of Policy.

After that I stated some background information. I'm not trying to promote democratic-socialism; I simply called it "progressive." That is not an opinionated word. Some think that progressive is bad, some think it is good. I guess my tone kind of portraying an ongoing genocide that has killed 3 million people to be horrible, but come on, can you blame me?

| |
10

Welcome to Politics Stack Exchange. Please note that the purpose of this website is to teach and learn about politics and political processes. We are not here to convince others of our political views or spread awareness for political issues. For that reason we generally try to write questions and answers on this website which stay neutral and do not take sides.

Unfortunately your question is anything but neutral. The "Background info" does everything to make one country look good and the other bad. It is full of dubious and unsourced statements. It paints a black&white picture of good vs. evil while reality is far more nuanced than that.

I do not want to debate your statements, because this is not a website for debate. I just want to point out that your question does not really look like a question but more like a political propaganda piece to make people side with one country and oppose another. This kind of rhetoric is really not welcome in this community.

| |
  • Again, do you want me to make genocide sound ok? – Ankit May 17 at 20:13
  • I can get sources if you want to back everything up, but there really is no way to make it not sound like good vs evil because genocide is inherantly evil. – Ankit May 17 at 20:15
0

My main problems with your so called "background info" are that it's mostly a opinion, extremely onesided or just completly wrong. All those things are considered bad for questions here. Also, words like extremely should not be used that way,
Let me try to correct your info-part (I don't know much about Pakistan, so i changed less there):

India(almost everything here was just wrong):

India is a nation with neoliberal policies that lately cut funding for healthcare, their social system and the enviromantal programs. It moves towards secularism, although the goverment still has strong connections to several religios groups, and it has a large refugee intake. It is also the world's largest democracy, with a much higher voter turn out than the US itself, and a constitutional clause requiring polling stations within 2 km of each voter.

Pakistan:

Pakistan on the other hand is conservative. They have a very laissez-faire economic policy, few and underfunded social programs for the poor. They were conservative socially, having persecuted minorities to the point that minorty percentage has gone from ~22% upon independence (1947) to ~2% today. This includes a genocides of Hindus, Sikhs, Ahmaddhis, Bangladeshis, etc. that have killed several million. As for democracy, it has recently gotten rid of it's last dictator and democratically elected a Prime Minister.

Democrats:

The Democratic Party of the US has been known for their recent progressivization, with several new members like "the squad" (Alexandia Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib) as well as seasoned politicians like Bernie Sanders openly calling themselves Democratic Socialists. They often claim to base their party on human rights, calling for foriegn aid to various nations, and the ban of arms sales to human rights violaters like Saudi Arabia, etc.

The very same Democratic party has been consistant in the support of Pakistan.

(everything after this sentence are accusations without any sources to back it up)

Republicans:

I just want to start by saying that I will not equate the human rights violations of Pakistan to the Republicans, as Republicans have caused inequality, violence and human rights violations against minorities, but state-sponsored persecution (at least in recent history). While there are several racists in the party, it would be unfair to stereotype them by the actions of a few. That being said, Republicans do tend to not care as much about human right issues, with Trump pushing to increase arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Republicans are however, extremely anti-Socialism. We've all heard them say "America will never be a socialist country." They have been quite clear in their efforts to stop the spread of such ideologies.

The very same Republican party has often supported India, with Trump being quite friendly with Modi. Republicans have pushed to sell arms to the Indian Army, as well as providing aid. Several Republicans have been quite outspoken about why the US should stop supporting Pakistan.

| |
  • Its all true. I can find sources to back up everything I wrote there. Would it be acceptable then? – Ankit May 19 at 5:41
  • 1
    @Ankit Yes it would, that's why everyone told you [citation needed]. BUT: the sources must be reliable (so don't use sources like FOX-News) and you need to cut accusations. That's why i removed a large part of the Democrats paragraph. Also don't use needless emphasises like "extremely". It will make you sound much more biased. – miep May 19 at 7:10
  • 1
    I'm acually curios where you will find sources that claim Modi's government to be social democratic, while it's making neoliberal politics like cutting funding for healthcare, social programs and enviroment while removing stipulations for large companies... – miep May 19 at 7:16
  • 5
    The safest way to make the question acceptable though would be to remove the "background information" all together. – miep May 19 at 7:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .