This shit is going to pass with full bipartisan support and libs are still going to be confused the next time someone tells them both
sidesparties are the same.You're basically outright admitting that "muh both sides" is a right wing talking point.
But the fact that there are things both sides agree on does not mean both sides are the same.
It's like saying that because Hitler and Lincoln both agree that eating shit is a terrible idea, that both republicans and Nazis are the same.
This is like extremely basic logic.
the point is that the democrats are a right wing party, as evidenced by their ongoing funding of war at the expense of their own citizens' well being.
this is like extremely basic logic
You know two things can be "right wing" and still not the same, right? Both Nazis and Republicans are right wing...but you're smart enough to realize they aren't the same, correct?
Both Nazis and Republicans are right wing...but you're smart enough to realize they aren't the same, correct?
This comparison really isn't helping your point lmao
Lol yeah I kind of second guessed it based on how stupid people can be and that there would be some people dumb enough to think republicans are equivalent to the Nazis.
Sure they're not literally identical, but both are fascist parties that have more ideological similarities then they do differences. And the Nazi ideology is on record taking inspiration from Jim Crow laws in the US.
Most humans have more ideological similarities than they do differences, so of course that is going to be true, especially when you're pulling from a group of people who come from extremely similar cultures.
But that doesn't change the fact that there are obvious differences between the two parties on issues that are impactful and important.
Both groups had race science laws, one inspiring the other
Well, people are more similar than dissimilar, so of course there are commonalities!
Torpedos own point by failing to contrast fascist against fascist
"No ur dumb actually"
Go tell your math teacher that all rectangles are equal to each other because they're all squares. Lol
Yes yes I'm sure there's an incredible diversity of thought among Nazis. You are very smart for seeing the nuance among monsters.
If you want to make a good argument as to why they are all the same, while there are clear and important distinctions between the two major us parties, I'd love to hear it.
But if you are going to make stupid arguments like "they are all the same because they agree on this one thing!" Or "they are all the same like rectangles are all the same!" Then you are going to get called out for it, and pouring on the sarcasm in place of an argument doesn't make your initial point any less stupid.
My argument was not all Republicans are Nazis, but all Nazis are Republicans. Am. I. Wrong?
Insta-debunk because when it comes to environmental issues, they are very different and this only lists abortion as a difference.
Of course, it comes as no surprise that "muh both sides"-ers base their arguments on dishonest cherry picking.
Earth is still on track to be completely uninhabitable by the end of the century but hey, Dems pay lip service to climate change so kudos to them!
dishonest cherry picking
What part of this image is dishonest? Be specific. You clearly didn't even bother to look very closely at it, since you failed to notice how your "yeah well what about environmental issues
" rebuttal had already been directly addressed by the very diagram you were responding to.Lol at the smuglord image after posting a sophomoric oversimplified venn diagram while tapping it. You win biggest projection of the day.
But no it doesn't actually address it, it mentions climate change, which is one aspect, and still not correct.
But that being said, just last year the Dems passed the inflation reduction act which was the most significant bill in us history to address climate change.
But whatever I'm sure is the republicans would have done the same thing.
Lol at the smuglord image after posting a sophomoric oversimplified venn diagram while tapping it. You win biggest projection of the day.
Then how about actually addressing the fucking points? If it's such a "sophomoric oversimplified venn diagram" as you claim, then explain to the class how it's sophomoric and oversimplified. Engage with the content and stop being such a coward.
But that being said, just last year the Dems passed the inflation reduction act
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 2005 levels aka too little too late. And Biden opened up a bunch of offshore drilling negating any climate impact that bill might have had. Great job, Democrats.
which was the most significant bill in us history to address climate change.
You say that like it's a high bar.
But whatever I'm sure is the republicans would have done the same thing.
At least the Republicans are up front about how awful they are and don't pretend to help by pissing on us as they throw more fuel on the fire.
Then how about actually addressing the fucking points?
I've never said nor suggested that there was nothing they agree on. While I could quibble about most of "they are the same" points in the middle, and strongly disagree with others, it's really besides the point. There are things on which they are drastically different.
then explain to the class how it’s sophomoric and oversimplified.
I literally did, or debunked it as cherry-picked garbage, and you accused me of being a smuglord for doing so. Am I supposed to address every little point on it? Or can I just demonstrate how it is cherry-picked garbage?
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 2005 levels aka too little too late.
I tend to agree. But all we can do is move forward at this point. But that doesn't change the fact that with republicans we would do nothing, if not just make policy to make it even worse.
You say that like it’s a high bar.
No, I did not. You just need to be dismissive of it because it negates your worldview.
At least the Republicans are up front about how awful they are and don’t pretend to help by pissing on us as they throw more fuel on the fire.
Ah, so we agree both sides are not the same. Good on you for coming around. Although, in a kind of weird way. But, this kind of further proves a belief of mine that "muh both sides" is just an attempt to excuse bad behavior by Republicans so people can justify still voting for them.. . and maybe I can add now "despite openly being against their interests."
There are things on which they are drastically different.
Things which Democrats do little to nothing about. Remind me how abortion rights are going, again?
Am I supposed to address every little point on it?
I'm just asking you to back up the arguments you made, buddy. You insisted the entire diagram I provided was "dishonest" "cherry picking" and "sophomoric" and all I want is for you to do is explain exactly how, which you refuse to do aside from going on about climate change, one point among many that were presented.
But that doesn't change the fact that with republicans we would do nothing.
So "doing nothing" and "doing a tiny bit of something then immediately negating it with something worse" are totally different things that we need to respect, got it.
Ah, so we agree both sides are not the same
"Both parties are the same" means "both parties only serve capital." This isn't a very complex point and you only make yourself look foolish by failing to grasp it.
Things which Democrats do little to nothing about. Remind me how are abortion rights going, again?
In blue states where they have significant control, perfectly fine. At the federal level where Republicans packed the court so they could take away the rights of individuals, and in Republican controlled states, not so much. Democrats can't really do much when Republicans block appointments to the SCOTUS because "it's an election year", then turn around and contradict themselves and appoint a SCOTUS during an election year. And, again, they can't do much when they have a slim majority, and things can be blocked by a filibuster or a handful of democrats dissenting from the party.
which you refuse to do aside from going on about climate change
Again, I said the environment, not just Climate change. Go look at environment protections in blue states vs red states.
And, again, this venn diagram you've probably been (smugly) pulling out and tapping every time someone challenges on the BS is now outdates, considering democrats just passed a significant climate bill (even if it isn't enough). No longer can one claim they are doing nothing at the federal level but paying lip service.
So “doing nothing” and “doing a tiny bit of something then immediately negating it with something worse” are totally different things that we need to respect, got it.
This is generally how our government works, we do things incrementally. It's kind of designed that way, for better or for worse. In this case worse. But yes, moving in the right direction is much better and different than moving in the wrong direction, even if it is only incremental.
“This isn’t a very complex point and you only make yourself look foolish by failing to grasp it.
So, if it isn't complex, why obfuscate the point that they are only the same on a subset of things and ignore all the important ways they are different? Seems rather dishonest to me.
Democrats can't really do much when Republicans block appointments to the SCOTUS because "it's an election year", then turn around and contradict themselves and appoint a SCOTUS during an election year. And, again, they can't do much when they have a slim majority, and things can be blocked by a filibuster or a handful of democrats dissenting from the party.
Dems had multiple opportunities in the nearly 50 years Roe was active where they had control of both chambers of congress and the presidency, in which they could have easily enshrined abortion rights into law. Likewise for abolishing the filibuster. Why haven't they?
Again, I said the environment, not just Climate change
Again, the diagram addresses far more than climate change/the environment. You said the entire diagram was "dishonest cherry picking," yet here you are dishonestly cherry picking one small point while ignoring everything else presented on the image.
democrats just passed a significant climate bill (even if it isn't enough). No longer can one claim they are doing nothing at the federal level but paying lip service.
Why should anyone bother responding to you if you're going to ignore everything they say and just repeat the same points over and over again after they've been rebutted? Scroll up and read my other comments again, I'm not repeating myself.why obfuscate the point that they are only the same on a subset of things and ignore all the important ways they are different
So all the points in the middle of the diagram just aren't important? The fact that both parties only serve capital doesn't matter to you? Both parties rubber stamping endless defense budget increases while healthcare crumbles is insignificant? Both parties providing full, unconditional support and funding to a genocidal apartheid state doesn't matter because the bloo team did a single bill promising to reduce carbon emissions by a little bit (then completely negated it by opening up more oil drilling)?
In what important ways have they actually made a difference (and don't fucking go on about "but the environment" again unless you have something new to say that hasn't already been rebutted)?
Dems had multiple opportunities in the nearly 50 years Roe was active where they had control of both chambers of congress and the presidency, in which they could have easily enshrined abortion rights into law. Likewise for abolishing the filibuster. Why haven’t they?
Maybe should have. But what are you trying to prove here? They could have also teamed up with Republicans to outlaw abortion, but they didn't. They've done plenty to show their support for pro-choice, especially at the state level. If they were "the same" here, then abortion would easily be illegal everywhere.
You said the entire diagram was “dishonest cherry picking,” yet
No I didn't. I demonstrated why it was BS cherry picking by pointing out a glaring and important omission.
Why should anyone bother responding to you if you’re going to ignore everything they say and just repeat the same points over and over again after they’ve been rebutted?
You are mad at me for not moving with the goal posts. This went from 'they are both the same and democrats just pay lip service to the environment!" to "well, I don't think they've done enough!" I can agree with the latter, but they are still doing things. They are still showing some effort. They are still moving in the right direction. Republicans are still denying everything.
So all the points in the middle of the diagram just aren’t important? The fact that both parties only serve capital doesn’t matter to you? Both parties rubber stamping endless defense budget increases while healthcare crumbles is insignificant? Both parties providing full, unconditional support and funding to a genocidal apartheid state doesn’t matter because the bloo team did a single bill promising to reduce carbon emissions by a little bit (then completely negated it by opening up more oil drilling)?
LOL. You're basically just outright admitting how weak your position by the fact that you feel the need to put words in my mouth. The argument is that they are the same. I've already made clear I understand that in some ways they are the same. I'll even add in some ways I strongly disagree with the way they are the same. So the fact that they are the same on some issues doesn't change the fact that they are not the same. This isn't difficult position to understand.
and don’t fucking go on about “but the environment” again unless you have something new to say that hasn’t already been rebutted
I said environment, you pretend that it was just climate change. I pointed out that they passed a bill with a large focus on climate change. You just whine it doesn't count. I cited an article that you just blatantly ignored. lol, my man, you've rebutted nothing.
They've done plenty to show their support for pro-choice
Except for actually enshrining it into law, which, you know, would have been the most supportive thing they could have done, given that their whole jobs are to make laws. Spoiler alert: they don't want to because it's a useful wedge issue for them.
No I didn't. I demonstrated why it was BS cherry picking by pointing out a glaring and important omission.
Which I've rebutted, multiple times, and you still haven't responded to. How many times has the Biden offshore drilling expansion been brought up? Three, four times now?
They are still moving in the right direction
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/29/politics/biden-offshore-drilling-plan-climate/index.html
Read the fucking article already. It is a direct rebuttal to your "well at least Democrats are trying" argument and it's been brought up multiple times now. If you're not going to bother responding to it I'm just going to tell you to shut the fuck up. The end results of the Dem's baby steps in the "right direction" and GOP's complete climate inaction is the same: complete environmental collapse. Yes, Dems are doing something rather than nothing, congratulations. But when it means an unlivable hellscape in 21 years instead of 20 years, don't act shocked when people compare the two parties and find the fundamental differences lacking.
You are mad at me for not moving with the goal posts
The goal posts are exactly where they started, you've just failed to comprehend the points being made. Or just blatantly ignored them.
The argument is that they are the same
As I've already explained to you, "both parties are the same" means "both parties serve capital." It does not mean "both parties are literally exactly the same with no differences whatsoever." Are you that baby brained that you are unable to grasp this very simple concept? You keep acting smugly superior because "well bloo team did this one thing that red team didn't do, therefore they aren't literally exactly the same thing, checkmate
" like my god, I actually clarified this a few comments up. Stop assuming what other people are saying and listen to what they're saying.I said environment, you pretend that it was just climate change. I pointed out that they passed a bill with a large focus on climate change. You just whine it doesn't count. I cited an article that you just blatantly ignored. lol, my man, you've rebutted nothing.
Yes I read your article. "A growing number of blue states are adopting sweeping new climate laws — such as New York’s bill, passed this week, to zero out net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050" wow great job, they're planning to zero emissions long after the planet has already been destroyed, amazing, totally doesn't support my point that the shit Democrats are doing isn't going to result in meaningful results that are any different from the GOP's plan of nothing at all.
You just whine it doesn't count
I pointed out that it will not result in anything substantial, especially considering the other actions they've taken. If neither party will ever stand up to capital and the end result is in all scenarios is the planet being turned into an uninhabitable hellscape, why should anyone treat them differently?
At the federal level where Republicans packed the court
Republicans did not pack the court, they could get away with lower-level chicanery. If the Dens really cared or weren't cowards, they might consider actually packing the court.
This administration has opened up a shitload of new oil drilling, weird lanyard nerds coping
Not to mention the environmental impact of all these new wars
Not to mention the environmental impact of all these new wars
Lol thanks for proving my point that it's a right wing talking pointing by implicitly blaming the wars on democrats.
This comment thread is about the bipartisan support for the wars. How is that blaming them on democrats?
They are trying to demonstrate that Democrats don't care about the environment, which is why they pointed to new oil drilling and then go on to say "not to mention" about the war. Maybe you are right, and they didn't mean to link it to the Dems, but it pretty clearly did.
The point of all of this is bipartisan support of terrible shit, you just fell back into your habit of looking at things in terms of arguing against Republicans.
My man which party's administration has given 400 quantillion dollars to Ukraine to prolong it's dumb war
Aren't Democrats currently arming one side of the Russo Ukrainian conflict and arming the Israeli occupation? And didn't those same Democrats increase military funding?
The specific combination of factors in the historical formation of U.S. society—dominant “biblical” religious ideology and absence of a workers’ party—has resulted in government by a de facto single party, the party of capital. The two segments that make up this single party share the same fundamental liberalism. Both focus their attention solely on the minority who “participate” in the truncated and powerless democratic life on offer. Each has its supporters in the middle classes, since the working classes seldom vote, and has adapted its language to them. Each encapsulates a conglomerate of segmentary capitalist interests (the “lobbies”) and supporters from various “communities.”
American democracy is today the advanced model of what I call “low-intensity democracy.” It operates on the basis of a complete separation between the management of political life, grounded on the practice of electoral democracy, and the management of economic life, governed by the laws of capital accumulation. Moreover, this separation is not questioned in any substantial way, but is, rather, part of what is called the general consensus. Yet that separation eliminates all the creative potential found in political democracy. It emasculates the representative institutions (parliaments and others), which are made powerless in the face of the “market” whose dictates must be accepted.
If the claim was that they were the same in the support of capitalism, the economic system primarily responsible for making us the juggernaut that we are, then I would have not said anything. But when it comes to social, environmental, and how to use (if at all) that generated wealth to support the less fortunate among us, they differ drastically.
You are literally doing the second paragraph I quoted in your reply here. You cannot seperate capitalism and the laws of accumulating capital from social and environmental issues. They are intrinsically linked. Just as the second paragraph said, you did not even question this so "seperation", you just accepted it as the general consensus.
Slavery and imperialism have been very profitable for the masters of the imperial core, yes
I believe that democrats should at the very least oppose genocide (rather than encourage it) if they want to be considered different from the republicans.
Remember when Hitler and Lincoln both signed the "Don't eat shit" Bill before one lost a war and ate shit while the other won a war and ate shit? Good thing they did, because otherwise your example would be shit.
Healthcare, debt relief, child povery mitigation.
unlimited genocide on US designated subhumansBut when we ask for help as citizens, "how are you gonna pay for it, huh?"
Desperate empire practices policy of War Startups, sends funding to whomever
Silica ValleyThey already spend a ton of public dollars on health. The problem is that it goes to insurance companies, administrative staff, and the downstream health costs of inadequate early access to care.
You're kinda contradicting yourself.
They don't spend public dollars on health. They give it to insurance companies and administrative staff and pharmaceutical companies and other private moneyed interests, and then there's none left for us.
They actually do spend a lot of public dollars on health, it's just spent into a system that isn't efficient. Universal access to care drives down costs significantly across the board - instead they have piecemeal coverage and a system with overall costs inflated by administrative staff hired solely to manage insurance billing and delayed treatments.
It's an interesting area of policy where expanding coverage means lower costs overall.
A lot of the money they spend on "health" isn't actually spent on the labor or materials or research needed to provide healthcare, it's stolen as profit by private companies.
It's important to remember that this money isn't being spent on our healthcare. It's being handed to moneyed interests.
This is true for any health system (labour and technology costs are huge components to health care, even in systems with universal coverage). However, there are also huge and significant costs inherent to any system that doesn't provide universal coverage (e.g., people delaying care leading to more severe illness costlier to respond to). Private insurance systems also introduce significant cost pressures even for non-profit and publicly funded providers by driving up staffing costs and requiring more support staff to operate.
All this to say, the US doesn't have a budget problem when it comes to health care - the primary obstacle is the policy challenge of switching to a system that does a better job at delivering care for everyone based on need rather than ability/willingness to pay. Massive cost savings follow when people are kept healthier.
My point is the money isn't actually being spent on labor or technology - it's just going into shareholders pockets.
The US government only disagrees on matters which support the average citizen. Other than that, both sides are in lockstep when it comes to voting on bills...
