Another example in the wild. A thread about a specific act of power-grabbing in North Carolina contains this attempt to dismiss all the concerns raised by suggesting that the objections are really partisan objections, not the actual objections raised:
Does anyone really think this sort of attempt to change the subject leads to productive debate?
Weird that you’re seizing on a comment in middle of the exchange and thus losing the entire context.
What directly began the exchange was the comment by DSYoungEsq (post #11), which was along the lines of my third paragraph in post #54 above. Although truth be told, he himself was even more on target in responding to the post he was quoted, which asserted that the lesson was not to elect “so many damn Republicans”. In that context, pointing out that the activities of the Republicans have a history of being done by both sides and accepted in NC is perfectly on target and relevant to the exchange.
[It should also be noted that you yourself noted in your OP that despite your outrage at the Republicans, you “have a hard time saying [you’d] oppose similar efforts [by Democrats] to neuter the [trump] presidency”. Rather forthright of you, but seemed to open the floor for question as to the nature of your outrage at the NC Republicans.
Yet another example from the wild, this time actually from a liberal to a conservative, so yeah, it does happen:
It is of course equally objectionable from left to right as from right to left.