They’re allowed to dislike and criticize him, that doesn’t make them an “establishment democrat tankie.”

Have you considered the possibility that two people could make a subjective judgement about someone’s character and come to different results? Or that, having come to those results, they consider it important to share them and convince others of their position?

I looked at their post history, and the last post they made about Platner had you right under it with the same copy-pasted response. Now, should I assume that you posting frequent defenses of him means you’re being paid by his campaign? Or, is it perhaps possible that you came to a conclusion that you’re passionate about? And if so, is it perhaps possible that they came to a different conclusion that they’re also passionate about?

It doesn’t even make any sense. I guess the DNC is also paying them to criticize Israel to, what, make their cover as a tankie more convincing? What’s even the game here?

It’s just nonsense. Frankly, I don’t have a strong opinion about this person because I don’t live there, but when you default to these accusations in response to any criticism, it doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence in your position.