The establishment acceptance of lower level political methods does not exist in this form on the Democratic side.

I think that what you’re doing, which is to grade political ads like a diving competition, is a fool’s errand, if the goal is to determine which party is less respectable than the other is this regard.

Why? Because “scoring” statements based on reprehensibility is subjective by nature, and feeds into an obvious problem of human bias — that something “your team” might say that enrages me you might see as “no big deal”. The reverse is also true.

I prefer to use a more objective scale, that being “is the statement a personal attack or not?”, AND “is the statement logically fallacious or not?”

The first one is RELATIVELY easy to spot. There is an obvious difference between “The President’s policy on X is idiotic” and “The President must be an idiot to support X policy.”

The second is a bit more dicey, as you can see by the length of the list of examples. At the risk of using an example which you agree with:

“Because he supports repealing ACA, Trump must want Americans to die” ….

…is an obvious logical fallacy because it assumes as fact what cannot be known, which is the private thoughts of another individual.

And of course, a very common one is the appeal to the masses:

“EVERYONE KNOWS THAT……[whatever]”

….is again a logical fallacy, because “everyone knows” is not known. :-)

At any rate, without giving a political example for each, that’s how I assess these matters.

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.