Which one are you arguing for? Schrodingerâs Argument where you simultaneously imply both until challenged is a fallacious form of argument known as Motte and Bailey.
No, I donât think there is a case to be made for that meme.
What actually happened is that Joe Biden lifted 3 million children out of poverty and in response political arsonists with a Palestine flag profile pic posted idiotic âbOtH sIdEsâ memes, probably at the behest of China or Russia. And then Donald Trump was reelected to the presidency.
Maybe itâs because youâre not American, but no. When faced with the catastrophic effects of climate change Democrats gave us âclean coal.â Democrats are great at pumping up deportation numbers. They bend over backwards to appease the âtough on crimeâ crowd by fucking over generations of black families.
Democrats have a fuckton of Ls on their record, a lot of which are just inexcusable. I just donât think theyâre evil.
I couldnât find Bezos donating to Bidenâs inauguration, that doesnât mean he didnât but he wasnât mentioned in the article I was reading.
But my larger point is. There is the parties billionaires donate to, and the party billionaires want to win. The distinction being that if Sam Bankman-Fried had been indicted for fraud in 2025, the investigation would have been squashed as long as he was willing to cut the right checks.
In the politico article I was reading about had a link to a related article titled âBiden defends corporate tax hikeâ. Which are words Iâd never associate with the servants of wealth. But definitely words Iâd expect from a media that hates democrats.
I didnât grow up in America but I am an American citizen and Iâve lived here 20 years; I think Iâm well aware of the shortcomings of Democrats.
âŚwhat exactly is the criticism here? I donât really follow.
I assume you are referring to the Obama era change in counting migrants turned away at the border as âdeportationsâ? Again, what exactly is the atrocious complaint here?
This is pretty vague so Iâm not even gonna guess what it refers to.
This is true. But see the topic of this thread: neither party is leading the voters to something better. The Democrats lead to something less bad, and the Republicans to something worse.
Renewables were projected to add 90GW to the US grid this year. Unfortunately demand has also scaled up (thanks to data centers), largely thanks to infrastructure and funding Biden put in place that Trump has been trying desperately to dismantle.
And sadly, bringing online renewables accounting for 7% of the total US energy capacity (which, as you point out, is rising to meet demand) is kind of a mealy-mouthed response to the unbelievably dire situation weâre in.
Democrats get a D- on climate change. At least they acknowledge that itâs real.
eta: If Democrats took climate change half as seriously as Republicans take trans people, America would look very different.
If you pass a law that says cancer patients canât be kicked off coverage for cancer, and then they vote you out by huge margins, thatâs not your fault for not âleadingâ them.
Things happen in Democracies (good or bad) because people want them. The problem that some (very good) progressive policies have is that the people selling them havenât even bothered to actually sell it to the (left leaning) base of their party before trying to sell it to the (centrist to right leaning) median voter.
If the argument is âDemocrats havenât been able to do anything substantial about climate change because âŚâ then, yeah, I get it. But in order to make that argument you have to admit that Democrats havenât done anything substantial about climate changeâŚ
They shouldâve stopped tariffing Chinese renewable tech but they listened to voters who donât take climate change seriously and like protectionism. Protectionism is extremely anti-consumer but the voters are unwilling to blame themselves. Even now the majority of kitchen table issues under Trump were caused by his listening to voters on their anti-ttade views.
Thatâs true, but a bit tautological. The Democrats could move things forward by leading rather than reacting. Both parties react to the perceived will of the voters, leading to a regression to the mean where it is not unreasonable to see the parties as the same, even if they approach that mean from different directions.
I am not complaining about the Democrats, but trying to explain that there are some ways in which it is reasonable to see the two parties as âsameâ despite the other obvious and fundamental differences.
Sometimes, sometimes he takes the sack, sometimes he fumbles, sometimes he throws a pick. Throwing a pass is hard, throwing it while expecting a hit is much much harder. But the one thing thatâs universal is that a lot of people who would need an ambulance after one snap on an NFL practice squad are very good at criticizing one of the most skilled players at the position.
Again the Inflation Reduction Act was the most significant investment in green energy in world history, or as you put it, a D minus.
Thatâs a fair point- all the former TEA partiers became MAGA and when MAGA dies they will be replaced by another despicable group. In a more generic sense, as long as the Republican Party encourages and enables those bound by hate to be an active force in their party, Republicans will continue to be morally inferior to Democrats. The TEA partiers formed out of visceral hatred for Obama and revulsion that a black man was elected president, this morphed into MAGA as the hatred was expanded to include Hispanics, gays, Muslims, and trans (as well as the rest of LGTBQ), Itâs this social issue warrior stuff that Republicans embrace and Democrats eschew that makes bothsidesism nonsensical.
Yeah. I think both of those things are true. I mean, itâs not like other countries really nailed their responses to climate change. Everyone blew it. And in 2026, itâs over. We lost, climate change won. Thereâs basically nothing Democrats could do at this point. 25 years ago was the last opportunity to take drastic and, if necessary, draconian measures to stop the bleeding. I just canât see giving anyone a high five at this point considering whatâs going to happen in the next 100 years due to our collective lack of action.
Personally, Iâd say rather than saying that Democrats are better than/worse than/equal to Republicans, Iâd say that it is easy for a general audience to say they are the same, while totally oblivious to why that isnât true. Now obviously that does not apply to @Inigo_Montoya, who has a more nuanced view on the situation.
But most people who say all politicians are the same do not have the intellectual currency to participate in the discussion and would not approach the subject with any of that nuance. The argument of most people who arenât high-information voters is going to be more along the lines of âI believe this about the world and that doesnât change with the politicians therefore the politicians are equally ineffective.â That is if they have given it any thought at all.
I think the influence of partisan media also helps make peopleâs choices for them. A guy on TV said Democrats suck therefore Democrats must suck because a guy on TV said it and the ânewsâ channel repeated it all day. That kind of thing.