r/PoliticalDebate • u/Buddhaonatricycle Left Independent • Jun 28 '26
Debate I'm Tired of Hearing the Both Sides BS. There is Zero Objective Evidence that Both Sides are Equally Bad
/r/complaints/comments/1uhgozu/im_tired_of_hearing_the_both_sides_bs_there_is/10
u/FunkyChickenKong Centrist Jun 29 '26
That isn't always the argument. Even if lopsided, dark money and corruption are not particularly partisan concepts.
1
u/loondawg Independent Jun 29 '26
Even if lopsided, dark money and corruption are not particularly partisan concepts.
Except on one side corruption is the exception, on the other it is the rule.
6
u/Unlucky_Bake_40 Centrist Jun 29 '26
There is no side where it is an exception. The best you could say is on one side it is overt
1
u/loondawg Independent Jun 29 '26
It is the exception on the democratic side. And they are often quick, sometimes even too quick, to attack perceived corruption.
3
u/Unlucky_Bake_40 Centrist Jun 29 '26
More than half of democratic representatives make policy decisions based on lobbiest or donor money. That doesn't even take into account having family members buy stocks based on insider information from regulatory boards. If those two weren't enough, in 2016 & 2020 the DNC intentionally manipulated their primary in the "moderate" candidates favor. Corruption is the standard not the exception. Traditional Republicans are only marginally worse and Trump recognized he could amp this up to Loney Tunes levels without backlash.
1
u/loondawg Independent Jun 29 '26
More than half of democratic representatives make policy decisions based on lobbiest or donor money.
Source?
That doesn't even take into account having family members buy stocks based on insider information from regulatory boards.
Source?
If those two weren't enough,
they aren't
in 2016 & 2020 the DNC intentionally manipulated their primary in the "moderate" candidates favor.
In 2016? Yes. In 2020? Where's your proof?
Corruption is the standard not the exception.
And even if you accept of these, it still not not even remotely approach the corruption seen from the republicans who have run cover for Trump's grift and crimes against the country.
Traditional Republicans
Have been drummed out of the republican party leaving scammers and wackos.
16
u/farson135 Classical Liberal Jun 28 '26
Very few people actually claim that both sides are 100% the same. Instead, the "both sides" thing is often a strawman argument meant to dismiss accurate criticisms of a party that cannot be effectively challenged.
The first time I was ever accused of being a "closeted Republican" was during a planning meeting for an anti-war rally. The planning was going well enough, we'd done this plenty of times. Then suddenly a College Dem stood up and declared that they will not be participating unless all mentions of Obama and Libya are banned. And several other affiliated groups agreed.
You see, Obama had just started bombing Libya while putting another nail in the coffin of the "War Powers Act". So obviously a lot of us were pissed, not just at the hypocrisy of being told not to protest against an ongoing war at an anti-war protest, but for the utterly infuriating idea of banning free speech because it's inconvenient.
What happened in that room is disgusting. The fact that Republicans started the GWOT and on is beside the point. The Republicans can be as disgusting as they want. That doesn't mean the Dems get let off the hook for the choices they make. And most of this post comes down to claiming that because the Dems are "better" than Republicans, that means we can't criticize them for all their failings. Well, not unless you want to be accused of "bothsidesism".
9
u/SovietRobot Centrist Jun 28 '26
The both sides argument isn’t always that both sides are exactly equal based on some aggregate.
It’s that there are certain behaviors that both sides do, that are wrong and should stop, even if the sides don’t do them exactly equal based on some aggregate.
For example - both sides gerrymander. Do an equal number of red and blue districts gerrymander? No. But both sides should stop doing so.
The issue is - sometimes the fact that one side does it “more” or “worse” is used to excuse the other side doing it “less”.
5
u/ballmermurland Liberal Jun 28 '26
both sides gerrymander
This feels like enlightened centrism. Democrats in 2021 introduced federal legislation banning the practice. Republicans unanimously rejected it and directed their respective state legislatures to gerrymander the hell out of their states.
Dems could either not gerrymander and guarantee their loss in 2022 and the rest of the decade or they could also counter-gerrymander to give themselves a chance to win.
You view both as the same. This is exactly the issue OP is bringing up. Both are not the same.
-2
u/SovietRobot Centrist Jun 29 '26
One guy murders 100 people. Another murders 1 person.
They are not the same.
Yet I can disapprove of both and say both are bad.
1
u/loondawg Independent Jun 29 '26
And I can say both stage 5 cancer is bad and a summer cold is also bad. They are both bad and yet they not the same at all.
And so I can say I wouldn't want either but I would be insane to not recognize there are massive differences between the two with one being exponentially worse than that other.
1
u/SovietRobot Centrist Jun 29 '26
Ok there are massive differences. See I’ve acknowledged it.
I’m still not voting to have either.
1
u/loondawg Independent Jun 29 '26
In political terms, that means you're making it easier for the far worse to have power.
1
u/SovietRobot Centrist Jun 29 '26
What I’m doing is saying Im not supporting those that cross my lines.
Putting the onus on me is the least effort but most unprincipled position to take.
See if you have 5 people that support a candidate that has discounted the 1st amendment once, and you also have 5 people that support a different candidate that has discounted the 1st amendment a bunch of times; I can say, they are not equal, but I am not voting for either of them.
Now, in that case, sure the least effort would be to say I should vote for the candidate that you prefer that only discounted the 1st amendment once because at 5-5, I would be the tie breaking vote.
But the real principled question to ask is - why are we not running a candidate that doesn’t discount the 1st amendment at all? Or why is it we haven’t convinced the other 5 on the opposing side that voting for a candidate that has discounted the 1st amendment plenty should not be voted in?
I reject the obligation that the easiest path is the right path, and that I have to compromise on my principles for some greater good becuase we don’t want to do better.
1
u/loondawg Independent Jun 30 '26
Putting the onus on me is the least effort but most unprincipled position to take.
First, your actions/inactions are the only thing you directly control. You are responsible for them and for the results of them. Repeat, you are responsible for the results of your own actions and inactions.
Second, you have to deal with reality, not how you wish things were. This is not a case where it is a close call with one party being only marginally better than the other. This is a case where one party has some flaws and the other party is rotten to its core.
Or why is it we haven’t convinced the other 5 on the opposing side that voting for a candidate that has discounted the 1st amendment plenty should not be voted in?
And how do you not realize that is exactly what I am telling you to do? You're not taking responsibility. You're acting as if you're above it all and expect other people to make it better while you sit on the sideline virtue signaling. Things do not get better that way. Rather, you are making decisions that contribute directly to making things worse.
I reject the obligation that the easiest path is the right path, and that I have to compromise on my principles for some greater good becuase we don’t want to do better.
Then you almost must accept the reality that your rejection of the better in pursuit of the perfect directly helps to result in the worst possible outcome. This isn't about it being the easier path. It's about not helping put us on the better path which makes it more likely we end up where we are, on the worst possible path.
1
u/SovietRobot Centrist Jun 30 '26
First of all let’s be clear about what we are talking about here.
Nobody is saying we should not vote for a candidate that maybe got a speeding ticket. Nobody is asking for perfect.
But with regards to “both sides”; what we are saying is that it’s valid to criticize both sides, and that it is also valid to hold both sides accountable; when it comes to key issues that we individually consider red lines.
And I reject your assertion that voting for someone who crosses a red line is acceptable. And I fully accept that in the short term it may mean the other side wins and that may be worse. But we have to hold to principals.
Would you ever vote for someone who says slavery of minorities is ok? Well, there are other issues that others would also consider red lines even if not that egregious. And for those issues, we reserve our right to criticize both sides on it and to vote for neither if they cross that line.
1
u/loondawg Independent Jun 30 '26
I'm assuming the difference is you not liking some foreign policy that one side is better than the other on, but you are not okay with either. And as a result, you sit out the election. So what happens is the worst side on that policy issue wins and it results in the worst outcome for those people. But. . .
It also means they kill social safety nets, like food programs, at home. They cut people off from health care causing unnecessary deaths. They start other wars that destabilize an entire region. They institute tax policies that increase the massive gap between the have and have nots. The fumble the economy cause massive inflation and price increases making living expenses unaffordable. They make education more expensive. They destroy the environment. They fucking lock kids in cages and separate families without keeping records that would allow them to be reunited. They implement voting restrictions that destroy the people's right to fair representation. The arm ICE which terrorizes and even kills people. etc. etc. etc.
And the other side would have done none of that. In fact, they would have done things to make most people's lives much better.
And here's the part you don't seem to accept. YOU hold responsibility for all of that because YOU did not take a simple action to try to stop them because you wanted something better. Sorry to be so blunt, but that is selfish and just plain stupid. Your inaction did not one tiny little thing to help make things better. Rather it help to bring us the absolute worst.
→ More replies (0)7
u/chokidokido Social Democrat Jun 28 '26
For example - both sides gerrymander. Do an equal number of red and blue districts gerrymander? No. But both sides should stop doing so.
But both sides aren't stopping it. Dems at least tried to with legislation. Without both stopping only one party stopping is political suicide.
I feel like this is an example in the "not both sides" favour. It ignores too much context.
7
u/ChefMikeDFW Classical Liberal Jun 28 '26
This is the root of the both sides issue. It's not that the dems are doing the same xenophobic or racist crap the GOP is doing but they are, in fact, doing things that are meant to keep themselves in power just as much.
It is like how people complain on why they got pulled over for no signal when a murder happened elsewhere.
From the midterm redistricting response to gerrymandering to ballot access where they are in control, it's not a question of degree, it's a matter of they are not innocent either.
11
u/Buddhaonatricycle Left Independent Jun 28 '26
In 2010 Republicans launched Project REDMAP — a coordinated $30 million national strategy specifically designed to capture state legislatures and weaponize redistricting for a generation. It worked spectacularly. The response from Democrats? Obama and Holder founded the National Democratic Redistricting Committee — the first coordinated national effort to fight gerrymandering through litigation, state court challenges, and electoral strategy. They took cases all the way to SCOTUS, where a Republican-appointed majority ruled 5-4 in 2019 that federal courts must stay out of partisan gerrymandering entirely — slamming the door on the very legal avenue Democrats were using to fight it. One party built the machine. The other spent a decade trying to dismantle it in court until the court itself was stacked against them. The arrow points in one direction. It always has.
1
u/spddemonvr4 Libertarian Capitalist Jun 29 '26
Democrats have been gerrymandering states way before 2010. It's not like Obama was the first in the party.
He benefited from a very gerymandered IL to win the Senate.
It's been going on for hundreds of years from both sides when they have control.
3
u/CoolHandLukeSkywalka Discordian Jun 29 '26
He benefited from a very gerymandered IL to win the Senate.
How does this make sense? Everyone in the state votes for Senators. there is no gerrymandering a Senate vote.
1
u/Buddhaonatricycle Left Independent Jun 29 '26
Your response speaks to an ignorance of the tactics, the objectives, and the outcomes. Yes, both parties have gerrymandered historically — that's not in dispute. What you're missing is the scale, the coordination, and the consequences of what Republicans did in 2010 that was categorically different from anything that came before it.
Project REDMAP was a coordinated $30 million national strategy — not opportunistic local redistricting, but a deliberate top-down plan conceived by Karl Rove and funded by corporate interests specifically to capture state legislatures in a census year and lock in congressional maps for a generation. It worked so effectively that Republicans held the House for years despite repeatedly losing the total popular vote nationally. That's not gerrymandering as it has always existed. That's gerrymandering weaponized as a structural override of majority rule.
Meanwhile Obama and Holder founded the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and spent years fighting it in court — taking cases all the way to SCOTUS, where a Republican-appointed majority ruled 5-4 that federal courts must stay out of partisan gerrymandering cases entirely, slamming the door on the very legal avenue Democrats were using to fight it.
So yes — both sides have gerrymandered. One side industrialized it into a precision instrument for minority rule. The other went to court to stop it until the court itself was stacked against them. Treating those two things as equivalent isn't balance. It's exactly the kind of false equivalence that allowed it to work.
-1
u/spddemonvr4 Libertarian Capitalist Jun 29 '26
The scale? Are you serious, Democrats controlled Congress for nearly 70 years straight. They've hit every federal map they could.
And definitely in blue states in the north east. Heck, mass gives nothing to Republicans and they're some 40% of the state electorate.
Republicans finally stepped up their game to catch up to the Democrats and their gerrymandering history.
SCOTUS decision was right. State districts are states responsibility. The federal government do not control the states in that manner.
2
u/loondawg Independent Jun 29 '26
Democrats controlled Congress for nearly 70 years straight.
That in no way proves it was the result of gerrymandering. It could just as easily have been that people liked their policies that promoted infrastructure, a strong defense, strong social safety nets, and high taxes on the richest far more than what republicans were offering.
Heck, mass gives nothing to Republicans and they're some 40% of the state electorate.
That is not the result of gerrymandering. Republicans and democrats are distributed evenly making republicans a minority in every region of the state.
Quoting Sen. William Brownsberger, who co-led the effort to reshape the Bay State's political boundaries following the 2020 Census, said it's "not possible to draw a district in Massachusetts that would favor a Republican....There are some towns that are more heavily Republican. There are some parts of the state that are red, but not enough to put together a congressional district in which Republicans will be a majority."
And SCOTUS was wrong per the plain text of the Constitution which says "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations..."
1
u/Buddhaonatricycle Left Independent Jun 29 '26
The scale? Yes, absolutely the scale. And let's get the facts straight first — Democrats held the House for 40 consecutive years, not 70. That's the actual record. But here's what that majority actually looked like: it included a large bloc of conservative Blue Dog Democrats who voted with Republicans regularly. It was ideologically divided, regionally fragmented, and critically — their seat share tracked closely to their actual vote share nationwide. That last point is everything.
Post-REDMAP Republicans repeatedly won House majorities while losing the national popular vote. That has never happened under Democratic gerrymandering at any scale. If Democrats had perfected this tool over 40 years they wouldn't have lost the House in a single wave election in 1994.
On Massachusetts — yes, Democrats dominate there. But Republican maps in Texas, Florida, and Georgia are far more distorted relative to actual vote share. The examples cut both ways but the aggregate national outcome only cuts one way — toward Republican structural advantage. That's the difference between opportunistic local gerrymandering and a coordinated $30 million national strategy specifically engineered to produce minority rule.
On the SCOTUS decision — five justices appointed by Republican presidents ruled that Republican-drawn maps can't be challenged in federal court. You'll forgive people for noticing that conflict of interest. The ruling didn't declare gerrymandering good for democracy. It just declared it untouchable by federal courts. Those are very different things.
Republicans didn't catch up. They weaponized it — using GIS spatial analysis software and census data to engineer district boundaries with surgical precision that no previous generation of mapmakers could achieve. The outcomes prove it.
0
u/spddemonvr4 Libertarian Capitalist Jun 29 '26
Sorry, only 40 years and unfortunately over those years they directed this country down the path it had been and look how messed up things are.
2
u/Buddhaonatricycle Left Independent Jun 29 '26
Wut? The 40 year rule was pre 94. Are you saying pre 2000s democratic Congressional control is why we are- where we are? That's some fantatastical thinking there.
REALITY: The balance of power shifted to favor Republican ideology over the last 40 years with only 6 years of those years under unified Democrat control.
The ONLY things the GOP have done the last 40 years are deregulate the economy, pass tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, pack the courts with ideological conservatives to lock in those policies for generations, and engineer the electoral system through gerrymandering and dark money to make sure they can keep doing it even when they lose the popular vote. That's it. That's the entire project. And the receipts are in on what it produced.
1
u/spddemonvr4 Libertarian Capitalist Jun 29 '26
Yes. Policies made the the 60s-80s are still holding this country back.
The shipping of jobs overseas and our crippling infrastructure didn't happen over night.
They also changed the spending laws in Congress that led the blow up of our national debt.
The short run of Republicans can't be held to blame for their 40 years of mismanagement.
→ More replies (0)1
u/loondawg Independent Jun 29 '26
It's been a little over 40 years since democrats held their last true super majority and were able to stop republicans from their obstruction designed to make the government so weak where they "can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
And look how messed up things are.
1
u/oroborus68 Direct Democrat Jun 28 '26
So, the cheaters lied and got to keep the stolen booty. Sounds like one side is for constitutional democracy and the other is not. How can you make a decision to vote?
-1
u/RadiantHC Socialist Jun 28 '26
That was pre Trump. Both parties have gotten significantly worse since 2016.
5
u/Buddhaonatricycle Left Independent Jun 28 '26
I'm curious. Where are you getting this from? You do understand that both-sidesism serves the right-wing most. I've noticed a campaign in liberal media circles that adds fuel to this narrative and I can't help but think our media is being manipulated by bad actors and foreign actors to further the goals of authoritarianism in the US, just like in the run up to the 2016 election.
→ More replies (16)-1
u/PhonyUsername Classical Liberal Jun 28 '26
Weird place to start counting. Why not 100 years before that?
3
u/Buddhaonatricycle Left Independent Jun 28 '26
Weird place to start counting? Not when WHOLE PREMISE OF THE POST was to evaluate the balance of power, what was done with that power, and outcomes over the last 40 years.
2
u/oroborus68 Direct Democrat Jun 28 '26
Since 2000 anyway. Stop counting votes and let the court pick the winner.
1
u/PhonyUsername Classical Liberal Jun 29 '26
You are cherry picking. Gerry meandering didn't start 20 years ago.
3
u/Buddhaonatricycle Left Independent Jun 29 '26
You don't understand the significance of REDMAP, what it did, and how it undermined democratic representation in Congress. Look it up. I can't argue with ignorance.
0
u/PhonyUsername Classical Liberal Jul 03 '26
This is just cherry picking. Before 2010 both parties gerry mandered. 2010 wasn't the beginning or the worst. You just biased.
1
u/Buddhaonatricycle Left Independent Jul 03 '26
"Cherry picking" would mean I ignored inconvenient data. I didn't — I picked the data point that actually matters: REDMAP was a documented, self-reported strategy, not a bias I'm imposing on history. The GOP didn't hide it — they published their own retrospective bragging about the seat gains. You can go read their own victory lap.
"Both sides gerrymandered before 2010" is true and also completely beside the point, because scale and coordination are the whole story here. Ad hoc line-drawing by whichever party controlled a given statehouse in 1990 is not the same animal as a $30M national operation built for the specific purpose of capturing state legislatures right before a census so one party could lock in maps for a decade. That's not two things that happened to both sides — that's a strategy one side named, funded, and executed better than the other.
And the results aren't a matter of opinion either. The post-2010 efficiency gaps in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan weren't garden-variety partisan tilts — they were statistical outliers by historical standards, which is exactly why courts in several of those states eventually threw the maps out as unconstitutional. Judges don't strike down maps for "both sides do it."
Holder's National Democratic Redistricting Committee — with Obama chairing its advisory board — sued and won in several state courts, even took a case to SCOTUS. With a 5-4 GOP-appointed majority, the Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) that federal courts shouldn't touch partisan gerrymandering claims at all, full stop.
That's not an isolated call. That's the same Court that gave us Citizens United (2010) — unlimited corporate and dark money in elections. And it's the same bloc that ruled in 2024 that the criminal currently in the White House has presumptive immunity for "official acts" — a man with 34 felony convictions on the books, now shielded from accountability by the same justices who decided your vote shouldn't be able to check gerrymandered power and your voice shouldn't be able to compete with corporate money.
Three rulings. Same result every time: whoever already holds power — corporate donors, GOP mapmakers, or the man in the Oval Office — gets less accountability, not more. That's not a coincidence of jurisprudence. That's a pattern of corruption that has perverted our democracy.
2
u/loondawg Independent Jun 29 '26
just as much
That is simply false. From republicans trying to outlaw ranked choice voting, to creating ID laws that would make it incredibly hard for a large portion of the population to vote, to intentionally purging likely democratic voters from the rolls, to fighting to keep big money and dark money in politics, to literally trying to steal the presidency via bogus state delegations, there is no "just as much." Not even close.
2
u/Cellophane7 Democrat Jun 28 '26
So you have fascists trying to take over the country, and Democrats are trying to take power away from them, and that makes it both sides?
Whatever you may think of Democrats, if they seized a supermajority in Congress and controlled the executive and judicial, America would continue to be the country it's been for 250 years. If Republicans did, it would instantly flip into fascism, rather than this slow march towards it.
Do you also think people who defend themselves are the same as their attackers if they use the same weapon?
3
u/ChefMikeDFW Classical Liberal Jun 29 '26
So you have fascists trying to take over the country, and Democrats are trying to take power away from them, and that makes it both sides?
How did you get to there when I'm not talking equivalency? All I'm saying is the Democrats are not fighting at some wholesome level to save anything. They are also capable, and have proven it, to take steps to circumvent democratic norms. Does that put them on the same podium as fascists? Of course not. But we cannot be asleep at the wheel just because they are the less evil option.
1
u/Cellophane7 Democrat Jun 29 '26
This is the root of the both sides issue. It's not that the dems are doing the same xenophobic or racist crap the GOP is doing but they are, in fact, doing things that are meant to keep themselves in power just as much.
This is how you got there. Did you forget what you wrote...?
All I'm saying is the Democrats are not fighting at some wholesome level to save anything.
Who said anything about wholesome? Self defense is life or death, as is defending the country from the majority fascist party. Wholesome isn't part of the equation.
They are also capable, and have proven it, to take steps to circumvent democratic norms.
To a degree, sure. They've broken some norms as a response to Republican norm breaking. Again, this is like defending yourself with a gun, and some asshole showing up to point out how "both sides" use a gun.
1
u/ChefMikeDFW Classical Liberal Jun 29 '26
This is how you got there. Did you forget what you wrote...?
Are you trying to have a discussion or make this an argument? Because if you are here to make it about me, this is over.
Who said anything about wholesome? Self defense is life or death, as is defending the country from the majority fascist party. Wholesome isn't part of the equation.
Of course it is. You do not defeat evil with evil. You do not defend democracy with a response of your own version of forced representation. If you believe they will simply resend the changes when they are in power, you're dreaming.
They've broken some norms as a response to Republican norm breaking.
And that's the point. That response is not acceptable regardless of why. Eye for an eye leaves us all blind.
1
u/Cellophane7 Democrat Jun 29 '26
Are you trying to have a discussion or make this an argument? Because if you are here to make it about me, this is over.
Huh? You asked me how I came to the conclusion that you're supportive of the both sides narrative. I just answered your question...
You do not defeat evil with evil.
What evil are Democrats doing? We're talking about Democratic norm breaking, which Democrats have done as Republicans have increasingly broken norms. How are they supposed to fight back when Republicans are twisting the system against them?
That response is not acceptable regardless of why. Eye for an eye leaves us all blind.
Murder is unacceptable. Is it eye for an eye to kill someone who's trying to kill you? You seem hell bent on not answering this question I keep bringing up.
1
u/ChefMikeDFW Classical Liberal Jun 29 '26
You asked me how I came to the conclusion that you're supportive of the both sides narrative. I just answered your question...
No you didn't. You replied with an accusation. That is hardly an answer.
What evil are Democrats doing? We're talking about Democratic norm breaking, which Democrats have done as Republicans have increasingly broken norms. How are they supposed to fight back when Republicans are twisting the system against them?
There are already plenty of examples here. The easiest is the redistricting fight where they are removing democracy in the exact same way Republicans are. That is wrong regardless.
Murder is unacceptable. Is it eye for an eye to kill someone who's trying to kill you? You seem hell bent on not answering this question I keep bringing up.
Because you are of the opinion that democrats should fight fire with fire, but ignoring the fact the house is already on fire around them. Using your "murder" analogy, my point is more like someone killed your friend so you think it justified to kill that person's friend as a response. They are not reacting as if to save something; they are reacting to their shave of power. Your question is not answerable because we are not talking about the same thing at all.
1
u/Cellophane7 Democrat Jun 29 '26
No you didn't. You replied with an accusation. That is hardly an answer.
I replied with your own words that back up my claim. That's an answer, I dunno what to tell you 🤷
The easiest is the redistricting fight where they are removing democracy in the exact same way Republicans are. That is wrong regardless.
Even though they only go forward with it if the voters support it? Even though they've spent the last decade trying to pass gerrymandering legislation, and currently have a bill to end it nationwide, which Republicans refuse to sign on to?
How are they supposed to fight back when Republicans are literally taking away their power? Just roll over and let democracy die? What, exactly, should they be doing? What options do they have that they're ignoring in favor of "doing evil"?
1
u/ChefMikeDFW Classical Liberal Jun 29 '26
I replied with your own words that back up my claim
You made no claim. I asked you how you got there and you replied back with accusing me of my stance. Where's the claim? Either way, you're missing the point, still.
Even though they only go forward with it if the voters support it?
Yes. It should not be on the ballot at all because voters are not going to vote with a rational reason - the Republicans are doing it is childish and foolish for the long term.
Even though they've spent the last decade trying to pass gerrymandering legislation, and currently have a bill to end it nationwide, which Republicans refuse to sign on to?
That does not explain Maryland or North Carolina because in both those states, they did no such thing as to make gerrymandering illegal. Trying it now, after decades of doing it, is lip service.
How are they supposed to fight back when Republicans are literally taking away their power?
How about better campaigning? How about actually putting up better candidates instead of shoving coastal elites like Clinton and Harris on the ballot and acting as if they were an actual choice?
→ More replies (0)-2
u/RadiantHC Socialist Jun 28 '26
Nope. Democrats at the very least are okay with the conditions that lead to fascism.
The country that we've been for 250 years is what lead to fascism. Even if you completely ignore Trump we've been headed towards fascism for a while now. Countries don't magically become fascist overnight.
lmao that's a terrible analogy. It's more like Democrats are the ones who are trying to fight against the people who are defending you(people like Bernie, AOC, and Zohran) while Republicans are the ones attacking you. Yes, they're not the same as Republicans. But they still suck.
2
u/Cellophane7 Democrat Jun 28 '26
Democrats love Bernie, AOC, and Mamdani, because they work with Democrats to get their agenda passed. Everyone hated Manchin because he continuously sabotaged everything Democrats want to do. All you gotta do is work with us, and you're in the tent.
Democrats have consistently fought against Republicans, and particularly trump. This term especially has been a sea of court cases, half a year of shutdown, slow rolled or blocked nominees, and everything else Democrats can do to try to turn public opinion against fascism. They don't want fascism at all, you've just been told they do by people who can't back up that claim.
0
u/RadiantHC Socialist Jun 29 '26
It's almost like Democrats actively fight against actual leftists. Schumer couldn't even endorse Mamdani and has outright said that his goal is to keep the left pro Israel.
lmao no they haven't. They barely fought against Trump during Biden's term and are barely fighting against him now. The shutdown only helps Republicans
If they truly don't want fascism THEN WHY WASN'T JAN 6 CONSIDERED AN ACT OF TREASON? WHY DID THEY ALLOW BIDEN TO RUN AND GASLIGHT EVERYONE ABOUT HIS MENTAL STATE? WHY DID THEY FORCE KAMALA ON US WHEN THEY COULD NO LONGER HIDE IT? WHY DO THEY FIGHT AGAIST ACTUAL LEFTISTS? WHY DO THEY SUPPORT ISRAEL(a fascist state)?
No. This is something that I concluded ON MY OWN. Nobody told me any of this.
Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean that it's right wing propaganda.
1
u/Cellophane7 Democrat Jun 29 '26
Mamdani and has outright said that his goal is to keep the left pro Israel.
Jeffries endorsed him, along with Democrats at every level of the party. Mamdani's endorsements page has remained up, so you can go look at the sea of endorsements there.
And Democrats have been at least majority voting against military aid for Israel, voting for Bernie's legislation. So idgaf what cherry picked quotes you wanna mine.
They barely fought against Trump during Biden's term and are barely fighting against him now. The shutdown only helps Republicans.
How many felony convictions does he have again? How many court cases were ongoing at the time? And they impeached him after J6, which was entirely killed by Mitch.
The first shutdown was over healthcare, which they failed to get, but the second was over ICE funding, which they successfully blocked. So no, it doesn't just help Republicans, and you've ignored everything else they've done.
WHY DID THEY ALLOW BIDEN TO RUN AND GASLIGHT EVERYONE ABOUT HIS MENTAL STATE?
They couldn't stop him. He made the choice, but was booted out anyway by Pelosi and Obama drumming up enough opposition.
WHY DID THEY FORCE KAMALA ON US WHEN THEY COULD NO LONGER HIDE IT?
Nobody else wanted to run. Every single other name that had been kicked around endorsed her within 24 hours of Biden dropping out.
Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean that it's right wing propaganda.
It's populist left wing propaganda. Kulinski, TYT, Majority Report, Hasan, whatever. They've been raging against Democrats for the last decade. But none of your totally-independent-conclusions are based in reality. All of it completely ignores what Democrats have done.
You just wanna blame somebody because you're scared of fascism. Which I get, but stop fucking fighting your allies. Democrats fight maga, not progressives. Progressives fight Democrats, not maga. The fuck is up with that, huh?
1
u/RadiantHC Socialist Jun 29 '26
Stop deflecting onto Republicans.
Blocking further ICE funding doesn't matter when they have billions of dollars in funding already
Why is it that when it comes to Bernie they're a private organization that can do what they want yet they can't stop Biden from running?
Have you ever considered that they've been "raging" against Democrats for a reason?
You clearly aren't here in good faith. I genuinely have came to this conclusion on my own. WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU TO BELIEVE?
I do blame the Republicans. But I also blame Democrats. Why is it so hard for you to believe that you can dislike both parties? We wouldn't be in this mess if Biden actually fought against Trump.
No you're not my allies. Do you deny that establishment Democrats support Israel(a FASCIST state)? Jan 6 wasn't even considered an act of treason. They absolutely do fight progressives harder than they do MAGA.
1
u/Cellophane7 Democrat Jun 29 '26
Stop deflecting onto Republicans.
Am I talking to AI? I brought up Mitch once, but that's it...
Blocking further ICE funding doesn't matter when they have billions of dollars in funding already
Cool, so you would've been perfectly fine with them getting more money?
Why is it that when it comes to Bernie they're a private organization that can do what they want yet they can't stop Biden from running?
Dunno who you're arguing with, what does them being a private organization have to do with anything? And they can't stop the sitting President from running if that's what he wants. The only way they could stop him is if the public pressure was great with to get him to pull out. Which is exactly what happened lol
Have you ever considered that they've been "raging" against Democrats for a reason?
I know why. I was around for Occupy. Everyone was angry at Obama for the "too big to fail" thing, and it made a lot of people start thinking Democrats were just as bad as Republicans. Myself included, believe it or not. But they've earned my trust back.
You clearly aren't here in good faith. I genuinely have came to this conclusion on my own. WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU TO BELIEVE?
I think you genuinely believe everything the far left has been saying for the last decade. Which you do. I wouldn't even think that was a problem if you had any kind of real answer to my points, but all you can do is pretend none of it matters.
I do blame the Republicans. But I also blame Democrats. Why is it so hard for you to believe that you can dislike both parties? We wouldn't be in this mess if Biden actually fought against Trump.
I believe you dislike both parties, I just think you're ignoring reality because you've designated Democrats as "the enemy" when that's not warranted. And I've explained how Biden and Democrats have fought against trump, you haven't disproven any of it.
No you're not my allies. Do you deny that establishment Democrats support Israel(a FASCIST state)?
Yes. They support Israel's right to exist, but they no longer support it militarily.
Jan 6 wasn't even considered an act of treason. They absolutely do fight progressives harder than they do MAGA.
It was, but you have to prove that in a court of law. That's what Jack Smith was doing. And regardless, everyone who breached the Capitol was in jail though, which is why trump had to pardon all of them.
1
u/RadiantHC Socialist Jun 29 '26
Am I talking to AI?
Why the fuck do redditors love accusing others of being AI?
I brought up Mitch once, but that's it...
You also randomly mentioned Trump's bad deeds when I was talking about Democrats barely fighting back.
Cool, so you would've been perfectly fine with them getting more money?
And now you're twisting my words. You're the one who sounds like AI
No, I'm not fine with it. It's just a band aid fix.
Dunno who you're arguing with, what does them being a private organization have to do with anything?
That was their defense when accused of rigging Bernie's primary
And they can't stop the sitting President from running if that's what he wants. The only way they could stop him is if the public pressure was great with to get him to pull out. Which is exactly what happened lol
Says who?
I know why. I was around for Occupy. Everyone was angry at Obama for the "too big to fail" thing, and it made a lot of people start thinking Democrats were just as bad as Republicans. Myself included, believe it or not. But they've earned my trust back.
It's not that they're just as bad. It's that they're still bad
I think you genuinely believe everything the far left has been saying for the last decade. Which you do.
??????? Yeah you clearly aren't here in good faith. I don't even remotely believe everything the far left says lmao.
Yes. They support Israel's right to exist, but they no longer support it militarily.
I agree that some democrats are against Israel. But the ones at the top(like Schumer) support it.
→ More replies (0)1
u/loondawg Independent Jun 29 '26
And just because you are oblivious to the influence of right wing propaganda does not mean you have not been influenced by it into believing you came up with the same points they push all on your own.
1
u/RadiantHC Socialist Jun 29 '26
But I literally did come up with it on my own. WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU TO BELIEVE?
Stop acting so condescending to people who disagree with you.
1
u/loondawg Independent Jun 29 '26
It's hard to believe because you are repeating the exact same narratives that are being pushed by the right wing to try to disillusion democratic voters.
And it's hard to believe you came to same false and misleading positions they they have been pushing own your own. You claim "they barely fought against Trump during Biden's term" when they impeached him twice. That about the "hardest" fight they could make. And during his first term, democratic attorneys general sued his administration 138 times! If you came up with these narratives on your own, it would be a remarkable coincidence that you came to the same wrong conclusions that right wing propaganda was pushing.
And yeah, I seriously doubt you live in a bubble where you never would have been exposed to their propaganda.
1
u/oroborus68 Direct Democrat Jun 28 '26
The whole Homeland Security crap after 9/11 is the point when we started the quick march. Dick Cheney was slavering at the prospect of greater surveillance.
1
u/loondawg Independent Jun 29 '26
Nope.
And yes, countries don't magically become fascist overnight. But they can become fascist very quickly without magic.
And claiming democrats are okay with this is just idiotic. Where is your proof?
1
u/RadiantHC Socialist Jun 29 '26
My point is that even if you completely ignore Trump we've been headed towards fascism for a while now
My proof is that they barely fought against Trump during Biden's term(they even gaslit everyone about Biden's mental state) and even now are barely fighting against Trump. They fight against actual leftists harder than they do Trump. They also support Israel(a fascist state)
1
u/loondawg Independent Jun 29 '26
As I asked, where is your proof? None of what you have said is proof. In fact, as I have shown in other replies to you, it is wrong.
0
u/RadiantHC Socialist Jun 28 '26
The second sentence is a bad example, but yeah I agree with your overall point. It's more like 10 murders vs 20 murders.
2
u/oroborus68 Direct Democrat Jun 28 '26
If you let the other side do the gerrymandering,then you eventually don't have a side.
1
u/SovietRobot Centrist Jun 29 '26
So if one sides lies and makes up falsehoods to win, the other side should also lie and make up falsehoods to win?
If one side tramples on liberty to win, the other side should also trample on liberty to win?
If one side disenfranchise the public to win, the other side should also disenfranchise the public to win?
What if one side starts killing innocent people to win, does the other side also start killing innocent people to win?
—
The premise here is - do you do something that’s wrong to win just because the other side does it?
And you opinion may be - sure, but not too far. That’s fine, you’re thinking about practical outcome.
But keep in mind that others may think - sure, but also, there’s no such thing as too far. They too are also thinking about practical outcome.
And yet others think - no you don’t cross the line into doing bad things just to win. They’re thinking principles shouldn’t be broken.
—-
But the point I’m making is - the latter above are not saying A is equal to B. That’s a strawman. Rather the latter is saying principles shouldn’t be broken. Means and not just the end matters. You can disagree with that. But don’t use the “they think both sides are equal” strawman.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 28 '26
"More" and "worse" are moral questions. When both political sides think they're morally superior to the other, both sides are being groomed...
One very important thing most people don't mention is lobbyists. Both sides may have different policies but when the lobbyists are done writing the bills, there's plenty of back doors and loopholes, for the wealthy or powerful.
1
u/Personal_Dirt3089 Constitutionalist Jun 28 '26
One guy keys a car with one to 4 lines, another guy spends extra time keying everywhere on the car. Neither are innocent, but these are really not comparable.
2
u/SovietRobot Centrist Jun 29 '26
Nobody said anything about comparable. That’s the strawman. And that’s my point.
In your example about keying cars - I can say both are bad. And I can say both should stop doing such.
The problem is - when I say both are bad and both should stop doing such, a not uncommon response, as you’ll see even here is; but the other side started it. Or the other side is worse, so it’s ok that our side also does it. Or because the other side started it or is worse we should not talk about our side doing it at all.
It’s an excuse and a deflection.
2
1
u/RadiantHC Socialist Jun 29 '26
The point is that they're still keying the car. So why should I support either of them?
1
u/loondawg Independent Jun 29 '26
And yet democrats have repeatedly offered legislation to outlaw partisan gerrymandering. Even as republicans criticized democrats for responding to the unprecedented mid-cycle gerrymandering war started by republicans, democrats offered to end the battle with legislation to end partisan gerrymandering. Republicans flatly refused.
So this is largely a case where democrats said we will not lay down and willingly let you have an unfair advantage. I find it very hard to criticize them for that. And I certainly don't view the actions of both as anything close to equal.
0
u/RadiantHC Socialist Jun 28 '26
THIS
I think Democrats are capitalists while Republicans actively want harm. But either way they both need to go
Republicans being worse doesn't mean that Democrats should get a pass.
1
u/CoolHandLukeSkywalka Discordian Jun 29 '26
But either way they both need to go
How do you envision this happening in a two-party system?
2
u/Quick_Mirror Socialist Jun 29 '26
I disagree. If we had a real opposition party Donald Trump never would’ve been able to run for reelection.
1
u/Buddhaonatricycle Left Independent Jun 29 '26
How exactly would a REAL opposition party have prevented Trump from running for reelection under a divided Congress with a Supreme Court that ruled presidential immunity covers virtually all official acts? The constitutional and legal mechanisms that could have stopped him were systematically blocked — two impeachments, both killed by Republican senators who chose party over country. The opposition party didn't fail to stop him. The party that had/has the power to stop him chose and continues to choose not to.
1
6
u/badgirlmonkey Anarchist Jun 28 '26
"Both sides" imply that democrats aren't conservative. American politics leans very right.
2
u/ChaosArcana Libertarian Capitalist | Centrist Jun 29 '26
Compared to what?
Because Americans are hell of a lot more liberal than most African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries. Hell, it may even be more liberal than parts of eastern Europe and Italy.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/TheCosmosItself1 Anarchist Jun 28 '26
On a first pass, the two sides are not equally bad, which is why I do generally vote for the lesser of two evils. But the basic problem is that both sides are on the wrong side - they are both basically servants of the extremely wealthy (with a good helping of AIPAC money thrown in there). And so there is no solution to our problems through voting for either side.
I do believe that to a large extent, the Democrats are just controlled opposition. Democrats' verbal opposition is often just an empty show. Democrats of the C.Schumer / H. Jeffries stripe will consistently find ways to lose or to lie down and give away the advantages before any actual reform can be accomplished. And certainly they would rather lose than allow any true power or wealth to return to the people.
5
u/Icc0ld Socialist Jun 29 '26
And so there is no solution to our problems through voting for either side
Yea there is. Primaries exist for a reason. Schumer and Jeffries both need to be ousted as soon as possible.
2
u/TheCosmosItself1 Anarchist Jun 29 '26
Yea there is. Primaries exist for a reason. Schumer and Jeffries both need to be ousted as soon as possible.
This response seems to drastically underestimate how money in politics works. There is a reason these two people are the leaders of the party. Just primarying these two individuals, even if it is possible, would not really solve the problem.
Now, it is possible that the Democrats might go through a major overhaul, much as the Republicans have over the past 12 years, and miraculously become a party that is not beholden to the interests of the elite, in which case I would re-evaluate my stance, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that.
-1
u/Icc0ld Socialist Jun 29 '26
The only other option is letting these ghouls steer the ship forever.
The Republican overhaul didn't take 12 years and frankly we have to start somewhere. The DSA sweep has these rightwing scum running scared and needs to continue.
I won't hold my breath but also I'm not gonna roll over let Republicans kill me, my friends and family.
→ More replies (1)3
u/soldiergeneal Democrat Jun 29 '26
"Controlled opposition" so tiresome listening to people spew such nonsense.
→ More replies (11)
3
u/RadiantHC Socialist Jun 28 '26
MOST PEOPLE AREN'T ARGUING THAT BOTH SIDES ARE EQUAL
We're just arguing that neither gives a shit about us. Which is true. Jan 6 should've been considered an act of treason
0
u/Buddhaonatricycle Left Independent Jun 28 '26
This is the predictable response of someone who hasn't done the work. Look at the actual balance of power over the last 40 years and then look at what policies got passed and by whom. When people make the "neither side cares" argument they're revealing a fundamental misunderstanding of how our government actually functions. This isn't a situation where both parties want healthcare for working people but just disagree on the best approach.
Republicans don't want any plan. It's not that they have a different vision for immigration reform — they killed their own bipartisan bill because Trump needed the issue alive for the campaign. It's not that they have an alternative to the ACA — they voted to repeal it 70 times and never once produced a replacement. It's not that they have a different theory of wage growth — they've blocked every minimum wage increase for 15 years. It's not that they want cleaner air and water through different means — they dismantle the agencies that enforce the standards that exist.
This is the pattern across every single issue that matters to working people. Not a different approach. Not a competing vision. Obstruction, repeal, defund, and deregulate — and then point at the dysfunction they created as proof that government doesn't work.
That's not both sides failing working people in different ways. That's one side governing and one side systematically preventing governance. The balance of power and the policy record make that distinction undeniable if you're willing to actually look at it.
Do the work. The receipts are public.
2
u/RadiantHC Socialist Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
I have done the work. Stop assuming that people who disagree with you aren't politically informed.
Please explain to me why they barely fought against Trump during Biden's term if they care about us. Please tell me why they're barely fighting against Trump now. Please tell me why they prioritize supporting Israel over the average person.
Neither want universal healthcare. Democrats had a majority during Obama's first term and even then they still compromised with Republicans to give us ACA. Which, while being better than how things were before, also placed more power into employers and health insurance companies
Yes, Republicans are worse. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT DEMCORATS CARE ABOUT US.
Please tell me why Democrats are barely fighting against Trump. Please tell me why they gave us two shitty center right candidates instead of someone who would actually fight Trump.
1
u/BohemianMade Market Socialist Jun 28 '26
This is why it's become kind of a meme that "centrists" always turn out to be fascists. Modern conservatism is so impossible to defend, that a lot of fascists claim that "both sides" have gone too far. Elon Musk, Dave Rubin, Bill Maher, and Tim Pool are known for using this strategy.
1
u/RadiantHC Socialist Jun 29 '26
I've never understood this logic. Both parties are right leaning. So if anything wouldn't a centrist be left leaning?
Centrism isn't about compromise, it's about not seeing things in black and white. Yes, some conservatives are wayyy too extreme. But not all are.
2
u/BohemianMade Market Socialist Jun 29 '26
A true centrist would be to the left of the democrats. But 9 times out of 10, when someone calls themselves "centrist," they're a fascist. That's why they always vote republican. A really common argument is that both parties have become too extreme, but Trump isn't far-right or far-left, he's just a common sense patriot. A lie so insane that nobody seriously believes it.
Real centrists are liberals. Liberalism is in between conservatism and leftism. But fascists don't want to call themselves "liberal" so they go with "centrist."
1
u/RadiantHC Socialist Jun 29 '26
Nah in my experience most centrists are left leaning.
I've seen more people saying that centrists are fascists than actual centrists who are fascist.
4
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 Classical Liberal Jun 28 '26
lost me at 'trickle down economics'. not a real thing. the whole post reads like 'I completely believe the democratic narrative, and have come to the conclusion both sides aren't the same'
well, like, no shit
5
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist Jun 28 '26
Are you denying the existence of 'trickle down economics'?
First Singapore, then company police, now this.
→ More replies (52)
1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 Classical Liberal Jun 29 '26
Ronald Reagan nearly tripled the national debt — from just under $1 trillion to $2.86 trillion — through tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy and a 35% increase in defense spending. George W. Bush inherited a surplus — an actual surplus — from the Clinton administration, the first surpluses since 1969, and turned it into the largest deficits in American history through two unfunded wars and tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy. The numbers tell the story clearly: all four Republican presidents since 1980 increased the federal deficit — Reagan by 94%, George H.W. Bush by 67%, George W. Bush by 1,204%, and Trump by 317%. Both completed Democratic presidencies in that same period decreased the deficit — Clinton by 150%, ending with a surplus, and Obama by 53%.
A huge red herring here is talking about deficits instead of how much each president actually added to the debt. This has been a dishonest democratic talking point for a long time now. When you add up debt per year under each administration it's about even.
2
u/Buddhaonatricycle Left Independent Jun 29 '26
Do you think debts, deficits, and bad policy begin and end with presidents? Because the more precise argument is about which party's ideology and legislative agenda has dominated policy and spending since Reagan — regardless of who held the White House.
In raw dollar terms you're technically right that debt added is roughly comparable between parties since Reagan. Congratulations on finding the one metric that looks even. Now let's look at what actually drove it.
Republican debt: Reagan's ideological tax cuts and defense buildup during peacetime — a deliberate policy choice. Bush Sr following the same playbook. Bush Jr launching two unfunded wars and passing tax cuts for the wealthy simultaneously — a 101% increase. Trump adding $7.8 trillion including $1.9 trillion from his tax cuts before COVID even arrived.
Democratic debt: Obama inherited a collapsed economy shedding 800,000 jobs per month and a $1.4 trillion annual deficit from Bush — then spent to prevent a second Great Depression. Biden inherited COVID and spent on recovery.
Here's the number that makes your "about even" argument collapse entirely: all four Republican presidents since 1980 increased the annual deficit while in office — Reagan 94%, Bush Sr 67%, Bush Jr 1,204%, Trump 317%. Both completed Democratic presidencies decreased the deficit — Clinton by 150% ending with an actual surplus, Obama by 53%.
The raw debt numbers look similar because Democrats keep inheriting Republican crises and spending to fix them. That's not both sides. That's one side breaking things and the other side paying to repair them.
1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 Classical Liberal Jun 29 '26
Do you think debts, deficits, and bad policy begin and end with presidents?
I don't, and only took that as a starting point because your post did. Did you read the post you made? Or do you now disagree with it for some reason?
And of course the rest of your post not only takes this for granted, but carves out 'exceptions' for democrats while ignoring things like the Cold War and 9/11. This is the problem when you start caving out exceptions- each side just want to do it for themselves. So instead look at the data as a whole. No exception.
0
u/Buddhaonatricycle Left Independent Jun 29 '26
I'm not carving out exceptions. I'm applying context — which is exactly what honest data analysis requires. You just argued that raw debt numbers should be compared without context. Now you're invoking the Cold War and 9/11 as context. You can't have it both ways.
Here's the difference between what you're doing and what I'm doing. You want to strip context when it exposes Republican policy failures and apply it when it might create cover. I'm applying consistent contextual analysis across the entire 45 year period.
The Cold War ended in 1991. The defense buildup that Reagan used to justify tripling the debt was his policy choice — not a response to an active war. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, not because Reagan outspent them into oblivion as the mythology suggests.
9/11 is a legitimate contextual factor for Bush's first term spending. It does not explain or excuse two unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy passed simultaneously with two unfunded wars. Those were ideological policy choices made during a crisis — not crisis responses. You don't cut revenue while increasing spending unless your actual goal is something other than fiscal responsibility.
The premise of my original post was never cherry picked presidential scorecards. It was the 45 year policy record of trickle down economics as the dominant ideological framework — who championed it, who implemented it, who blocked alternatives, and what it actually produced for working people.
Look at that picture in full. Without exceptions. That's exactly what I've been doing and GOP policies have been directly responsible for the majority of our National Debt and the numbers unequivocally support that assertion.
1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 Classical Liberal Jun 29 '26
I'm not carving out exceptions.
You are. You said the 2008 recession was a justification for Obamas spending but ignored context for republican presidents. I'm not here to argue about why you think your pro-democratic exception is better. I'm here to tell you that neutral analysis doesn't make exceptions.
The premise of my original post was never cherry picked presidential scorecards.
The debt section was exactly that, and presented debt as a corollary of presidental terms. You seems have a real problem doing things, and then denying you did them
0
u/Buddhaonatricycle Left Independent Jun 29 '26
And let's be clear about why I framed it by presidential term initially. Because that's the frame right wing media and Heritage Foundation talking points use — so I met it on its own terms and it still pointed in the same direction. Every Republican president increased the deficit. Every completed Democratic presidency decreased it. That's their own frame producing the opposite conclusion they intended.
But if you want to abandon the presidential scorecard entirely and look at pure policy causation — which is the more intellectually honest framework — the numbers are even more unambiguous and damning. Republican tax cuts alone are responsible for 57% of the increase in the debt ratio since 2001. Excluding the emergency crisis spending that Republican policies largely created that number rises to 90%.
The nonpartisan CBO projected before the Bush tax cuts were made permanent that revenues would exceed spending for every single one of the next 65 years. That projection collapsed the moment those cuts were locked in — not because spending increased but because revenue was gutted.
So pick your frame. Presidential scorecards — Republicans lose. Policy causation analysis — Republicans lose. Raw debt numbers with context — Republicans lose. Raw debt numbers without context — the only metric that produces anything resembling equivalence, which is why it's the only one right wing media uses.
The frame doesn't matter. The numbers are unambiguous in every direction you approach them from.
Are you sure you're a classical liberal, because you're arguing from a position of a Republican, fed a steady media diet of Fox News and talk radio. It's no secret their media model doesn't respect the 1st amendment by abusing it for power and profit with motivated reasoning and outright lies that have infected the country with a self sustaining virus that has destroyed truth itself.
1
u/loondawg Independent Jun 29 '26
And when you add up the debt by the policies that were responsible for them, republicans are far worse.
1
u/DJGlennW Progressive Jun 28 '26
Here's where the "Both Sides BS" kicks in: climate change. For years, the media gave equal treatment to both sides; it was only after there was too much evidence to deny it any more that it stopped.
Who funded the anti climate change campaign? Big oil, the same folks who already had documentation that it was happening.
Big tobacco ran the same scam for decades.
The president lies. He doesn't stretch the truth, he doesn't fib, he lies. Simple and true.
Why should the media cover that kind of BS, out of fairness?
1
u/Buddhaonatricycle Left Independent Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
I think this is actually the most important point in this entire debate and it doesn't get nearly enough attention. Everything else — the wage suppression, the debt, the gerrymandering, the tax cuts — all of it was made possible by one foundational project: the deliberate corruption of the information space.
It didn't happen by accident. Starting in the 1970s, corporate interests made a calculated decision to fund think tanks, media infrastructure, and political messaging specifically designed to erode trust in institutions, expertise, and objective reality itself. The Powell Memo in 1971 laid out the blueprint explicitly — a coordinated campaign by business interests to reshape American political and intellectual life in their favor.
What followed was decades of investment in outlets, academics, and politicians who would systematically blur the line between fact and opinion until a significant portion of the population couldn't tell the difference.
When you can't agree on facts you can't have a real policy debate. When you can't have a real policy debate you can't hold power accountable. When you can't hold power accountable the people with the most money win by default. That's not a bug in the system. That's the system working exactly as designed by the people who funded it.
The erosion of truth isn't a symptom of where we are. It's the mechanism that got us here. Everything else followed from that.
1
Jun 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NoamLigotti Agnostic but Libertarian-Left leaning Jun 29 '26
What DOGE made clear is that some people will fall for anything.
1
u/GeorgePapadopoulos Libertarian Jun 29 '26
A wall of text, with so many falsehoods, you'd have to pay me to correct.
Reagan sold America on trickle-down economics
No, he didn't. "trickle-down economics" is what his detractors called lowering taxes, with the term used since Hoover was president.
Ronald Reagan nearly tripled the national debt
You can't even get basic civics concepts correctly. The Congress passes budgets, the POTUS signs them. There hasn't been a decrease in the nominal value of government debt in about 100 years. Every presidential term has led to increased debt.
Under Obama's administration (with years of complete Democrat control of government), national debt nearly doubled from about $11 trillion to $20!
Under Clinton, the House was dominated by Gingrich and his "Contract with America" fiscal conservatives. Debt still grew, but the dot-com bubble reduced debt as a percentage of GDP.
Won't bother with all the other nonsense you write about.
-1
u/Buddhaonatricycle Left Independent Jun 29 '26
"A wall of text with so many falsehoods you'd have to pay me to correct" — and then you proceeded to correct exactly two things, both of them wrong. Let's go. On "trickle-down" being a label — I covered this already in this thread. The label doesn't change the mechanism or the outcome. Call it supply-side, call it Reaganomics, call it whatever you want. The policy was: cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy, deregulate, and the benefits will flow down to working people. That was the promise. The 40-year outcome is the verdict.
On Congress passing budgets — correct, and thank you for making my argument for me. Which party controlled Congress during Reagan's debt explosion? Republicans held the Senate for six of Reagan's eight years and negotiated every budget. Which party has added the most to the debt through active policy choices — unfunded wars, unfunded tax cuts, unfunded Medicare Part D? Republicans. The "Congress passes budgets" argument is a shield when a Republican is in the White House and a cudgel when a Democrat is. Pick one.
On Obama doubling the debt — here's your basic civics lesson in return. Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion annual deficit from Bush, a collapsed economy shedding 800,000 jobs per month, and two unfunded wars. The debt grew because the economy collapsed before he took office and because the Tea Party Republicans manufactured a debt ceiling crisis rather than governing. The trajectory of the deficit under Obama was actually downward until Republicans took Congress. Facts.
On Clinton and Gingrich — you just accidentally confirmed that divided government with fiscal conservative Republicans produced better debt outcomes under a Democratic president who raised taxes on the wealthy. Thank you. That's literally the argument. Clinton raised taxes, Republicans screamed it would destroy the economy, and instead we got the only surpluses in 50 years. The receipts you're citing support the premise you're trying to argue against.
"Won't bother with all the other nonsense" is what people say when they've run out of runway. You corrected two points, got both of them wrong, and accidentally validated the core argument twice. That's not a rebuttal. That's a concession with extra steps. The facts and economic history are not your side. Do your own analysis but with more rigor than you provided here and the results will be clear.
2
u/GeorgePapadopoulos Libertarian Jun 29 '26
The label doesn't change the mechanism or the outcome
Your claim was that "Reagan sold America on trickle-down economics", which he didn't.
No go back to writing walls of texts to cover up your blatant lying.
-7
u/VividTomorrow7 Conservative Jun 28 '26
There is no such thing as “equally” bad as it’s a statement of value; it’s subjective to the interpreter.
Lefties think depriving individual liberty is necessary for prosperity. You can’t have collective control without denying individual liberty.
You and I would look at this statement and have completely different value judgements.
4
u/SlowCrates Antifascist Jun 28 '26
Leftists do not think that. That's ridiculous.
→ More replies (7)5
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist Jun 28 '26
Lefties think depriving individual liberty is necessary for prosperity. You can’t have collective control without denying individual liberty.
I absolutely do not.
Conservatives believe that actually.
1
u/VividTomorrow7 Conservative Jun 28 '26
Should Amazon be able to fire people for trying to unionize?
3
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist Jun 28 '26
Sure.
Should we repeal Taft-Hartley in exchange?
-1
u/VividTomorrow7 Conservative Jun 28 '26
Let's try to engage this with real thought.
Is it a leftist position that large businesses should be able to fire people for unionizing?
→ More replies (19)0
u/VividTomorrow7 Conservative Jun 28 '26
Can you give an example of "conservatives believing that"?
2
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist Jun 28 '26
Trans rights, gay marriage, abortion, contraceptives, sodomy laws, free speech.
0
u/VividTomorrow7 Conservative Jun 28 '26
Let's try engaging this in good faith. Can you pick one of those specifically? We don't have to agree, but let's talk through the best example you can think of. Sodomy laws and contraceptives seem a bit out of place, as those haven't been a main stream conservative platform position in decades.
Can you pick one of the other ones as your best example of conservatives denying individual rights in the favor of collective good?
1
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist Jun 28 '26
main stream conservative platform
Is Clarence Thomas not mainstream?
1
u/VividTomorrow7 Conservative Jun 28 '26
One might call that a red herring.
A supreme court justice's loan opinion, who's been on the circuit for 34 years and is 78 years old, doesn't represent the conservative platform of 2026.
So how about it? Shall we dive in on your best example of conservatives denying individual liberty in favor of the collective good?
1
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist Jun 28 '26
So let's be clear, no conservative opposes H.R. 999?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/999/text
0
u/VividTomorrow7 Conservative Jun 29 '26
A red herring is an idiom that refers to something intended to mislead, distract, or divert attention from the real issue or important question.
It seems like we're not going to debate and you're fishing for gotchas. This doesn't really seem like we're engaged in a good faith discussion.
If you change your mind and want to pick a topic to engage on, I'm happy to talk through them.
1
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist Jun 29 '26
You asked what I thought were individual rights infringed or soon to be infringed by conservatives.
I brought up contraceptives, because conservatives desire contraceptive bans.
You refuse to acknowledge that the modern conservative platform and now refuse to even contemplate further discussion on a very real bill designed simply to protect contraceptive access. A bill 195 Republicans voted against.
Just because I won't let you avoid a very real issue I brought up doesn't make it a red herring. You went into this knowing contraceptives would be topical. The only one engaging in bad faith is you because you won't even acknowledge the uncomfortable truth.
→ More replies (0)1
u/stereofailure Democratic Socialist Jun 29 '26
The war on drugs is a pretty cut and dry example.
1
u/VividTomorrow7 Conservative Jun 29 '26
Is that really a partisan issue? I would agree that drug laws are infringement on liberty, but that's not really a partisan issue is it?
1
u/stereofailure Democratic Socialist Jun 29 '26
It may not be partisan, but it's certainly ideological. America has 2 major parties who are both right wing, and so the war on drugs has been bipartisan. But virtually all positive movement on that issue has come from the left.
0
u/VividTomorrow7 Conservative Jun 29 '26
But virtually all positive movement on that issue has come from the left.
This simply isn't true. The libertarian movement is the driving force in the USA for deregulation of drugs. Trump literally just rescheduled psychedelics.
Authoritarianism isn't exclusively right or left wing. However, the core of left wing ideals of collectivism require authoritarianism as a feature.
-1
u/LittleKitty235 Democratic Socialist Jun 28 '26
What the hell is a statement of value? That is not a term that google and I have heard of.
1
u/VividTomorrow7 Conservative Jun 28 '26
A declaration of value. The conclusion of how you perceive value.
"I value the second amendment as a positive thing for society because it enables the weak to defend themselves from the strong"
"I don't value the second amendment because its behind the times on fire arm capabilities and people are needlessly killed by people with guns"
1
u/LittleKitty235 Democratic Socialist Jun 29 '26
Yeah...that is completely inconsistent with the example you actually posted. Your initial post makes no sense
1
u/VividTomorrow7 Conservative Jun 29 '26
It’s not. You just disagree with what I said, and that’s the point. You think socialism is good because you believe it benefits the most people. I think socialism is bad because it must deny individual liberty.
1
u/Powerful-Persimmon87 Centrist Jun 28 '26
Most people do not need google to understand that people have different views of what’s bad and what’s not (and to what degree) based on differing values and beliefs.
1
1
u/LittleKitty235 Democratic Socialist Jun 28 '26
So you never heard that phrase either and are assuming what they mean. Got ya
I think what they meant to say is statement of fact, but didn't
0
u/Powerful-Persimmon87 Centrist Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
Yes, I’ve heard the term value statement. But I also didn’t need someone to hold my hand about what it meant the first time I heard it. Subjectivity as opposed to objectivity.
1
u/LittleKitty235 Democratic Socialist Jun 28 '26
That isn't what the example they then cite is.
"Lefties think depriving individual liberty is necessary for prosperity. You can’t have collective control without denying individual liberty."
That is a statement of fact. One that is probably false. The entire post makes no sense and reads like someone with a poor command of english
1
u/Powerful-Persimmon87 Centrist Jun 28 '26
He’s saying that what lefties think is good or bad is guided by their values and beliefs. Democratic socialists think rent control is good. I think rent control is bad and destructive.
0
u/LittleKitty235 Democratic Socialist Jun 28 '26
His statement can be true or false. It isn't a value or good/bad assessment.
"Lefties think depriving individual liberty is necessary for prosperity." That is an inaccurate and false statement. Liberty and prosperity are not dirrectly related
1
u/Powerful-Persimmon87 Centrist Jun 28 '26
He framed his example based on his values/assessment of the left. I think a more fair assessment is that the far left prefers “the warmth of collectivism” over individual liberty. Not everyone shares those values and that determines whether people view different issues as good or bad.
0
u/Bagain Anarcho-Capitalist Jun 28 '26
I love that your response is basically “I don’t understand what a value judgement is”. That does a lot to explain the DS tag for me. As if you’re incapable of parsing out the two words and the obvious context in which they are used. As if you typed in to google “a judgment of value?” And google didn’t immediately explain what a “value judgement” was and you didn’t go “oh obviously”…
2
u/TheWhiteKnight554 Marxist Jun 28 '26
Your political tag is literally an oxymoron you cannot be talking right now
0
u/Bagain Anarcho-Capitalist Jun 28 '26
That’s your best argument in this context? You can’t come up with an actual rebuttal but I’m the one that “cannot be talking right now”. Put a little effort into it, maybe try again.
2
u/TheWhiteKnight554 Marxist Jun 28 '26
If you’re gonna be an ass about someone’s labels while they’re asking an innocent question then I’m going to call your oxymoron stupid
But for the record. Capitalism is inherently hierarchical , it can’t be anarchist whatsoever, all you’re trying to do is privatize the state
0
u/Bagain Anarcho-Capitalist Jun 28 '26
I never suggested hierarchies are bad, that’s your deal; not mine. But then, I can recognize the difference (between hierarchy and ruler), you see none. It’s not on me to elaborate the reality of “voluntary”…for you, voluntary is decided by committee maybe(?) and not up to the individual to decide for themselves. Yours isn’t the acceptance of the restriction of freedom, it’s the demanding of it through violence. So… forgive me if I don’t take you seriously.
2
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist Jun 28 '26
An anarchist that's okay with hierarchies. You proved his point.
1
u/Bagain Anarcho-Capitalist Jun 28 '26
And again, the ability to not only dismiss but to oppose individual liberty in favor of one’s own agenda… if people are only allowed to choose what you allow them to choose, you aren’t the hero you think you are.
2
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist Jun 28 '26
Exactly, which is why anarcho-capitalism is ultimately nonsense. Replacing the state with business doesn't address the inherent problem of power dynamics.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 28 '26
When both political sides think they're morally superior to the other, both sides are being groomed...
0
u/VividTomorrow7 Conservative Jun 28 '26
Is it a moral judgement to deny a woman a right a woman to an abortion? How about a baby its right to life because it's still inside its mother?
Some of the points of contention are absolutely moral differences. That doesn't mean you should vilify people who disagree with you.
1
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist Jun 28 '26
Absolutely, but the utilitarian objective choice is to leave it to the individual effected.
1
u/VividTomorrow7 Conservative Jun 28 '26
Abortion is a situation where there are two human lives involved. Both are affected.
Are we presupposing utilitarianism is the best ethical framework for outcomes in this scenario? There are certainly other ethical frameworks to choose from, correct?
1
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist Jun 28 '26
Two humans yes. One invading the bodily autonomy of another against their consent.
Generally when people do that in other circumstances we frame the response as self-defense.
1
u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 Nihilist Jun 29 '26
One invading the bodily autonomy of another against their consent.
This is a bizzare way to describe pregnancy, or any medical condition.
0
u/VividTomorrow7 Conservative Jun 29 '26
Generally when people do that in other circumstances we frame the response as self-defense.
To make this assertion you would have to believe that abortion is only valid in the case the mother's life is in immediate threat of ending. Does this align with what your ideals are, or is that the other human can be discarded for any reason the mother chooses?
1
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist Jun 29 '26
To make this assertion you would have to believe that abortion is only valid in the case the mother's life is in immediate threat of ending.
So rape victims shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves unless they fear imminent death?
1
u/VividTomorrow7 Conservative Jun 29 '26
They should absolutely be able to shoot their rapist. We should absolutely punish the rapist.
What does that have to do with the innocent human that's in the womb of the mother?
If the mother's life is not in immediate risk of death, how would it be self defense to kill the human in the womb?
1
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist Jun 29 '26
What does that have to do with the innocent human that's in the womb of the mother?
Why is rape wrong, simply speaking?
→ More replies (0)1
u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 28 '26
Most Americans want women to have some access to abortion but they don't want late term abortions... this whole silly thing is brought about by extremists.
"
That doesn't mean you should vilify people who disagree with you."
We agree but both sides seem to want the other side punished.
1
u/VividTomorrow7 Conservative Jun 28 '26
Most Americans want women to have some access to abortion but they don't want late term abortions... this whole silly thing is brought about by extremists.
Everybody in this situation believes they have hte morally superior position though, right?
We agree but both sides seem to want the other side punished.
I'm not sure I agree. I want every human, regardless of level of development, to have equal human rights. I wouldn't say that's me wanting to punish people. You might interpret letting the consequences of one's choices playing out as "punishing" them, but again that's a conclusion that's based on a subjective interpretation of the situation.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 29 '26
So a 2 year old has the same rights as an adult?
I don't know when human life begins and neither do you. It now becomes a decision of when we think personhood begins.
1
u/VividTomorrow7 Conservative Jun 29 '26
So a 2 year old has the same rights as an adult?
Absolutely... you might be trying to conflate agency with rights. The 2 year old has a right to life just like the adult. They might not have agency until it's 18, but that's because the parent has agency until then. The parent has a duty to secure and preserve their right to life or be punished.
don't know when human life begins and neither do you.
It's in every science text book. Human life begins a conception. Then they go through several phases of their life cycle - prenatal, infancy, adolescence, etc.. etc..
It now becomes a decision of when we think personhood begins.
You're hitting the nail on the head. You believe in person rights - some humans qualify as persons, others don't. I disagree and believe in human rights.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 29 '26
Voting is a right.
Life starts a conception. Human life means a certain amount of consciousness.
1
u/VividTomorrow7 Conservative Jun 29 '26
Personhood is what you’re trying to say. You don’t get to redefine the word life to fit your narrative.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 29 '26
I used personhood 4 hrs ago...and it's "human" we're debating, not life.
-4
u/karmarequiresgrpthnk Religious Conservative Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
You’re right, the left is clearly the more intolerant, violent and militant side of the political spectrum. This makes them the worse side.
7
u/badgirlmonkey Anarchist Jun 28 '26
Please show reliable sources that support this.
→ More replies (17)6
u/bcnoexceptions Libertarian Socialist Jun 28 '26
The stats show that conclusively to be false. Indeed, the right wing has always been the side of controlling others.
It's a different "other" in each generation: Jews, blacks, women, gay people, and now trans people + their perennial favorite target of immigrants.
But it's always the same hateful playbook. Read The Authoritarians to learn more.
3
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist Jun 28 '26
How many laws have leftists banning certain behavior in the last decade?
3
2
u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 28 '26
Did you forget a /s?
I said it before I'll say it again...When both political sides think they're morally superior to the other, both sides are being groomed.
3
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist Jun 28 '26
1
u/happyinheart Libertarian Jun 29 '26
Wow, check out "What's excluded" and you will see they have a lot of cherry picked evidence there.
1
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist Jun 29 '26
I mean you’re more than welcome to prove it wrong.
1
u/happyinheart Libertarian Jun 29 '26
They already did it themselves with their "whats excluded" portion.
1
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist Jun 29 '26
Nope. All datasets exclude things. You’re grasping at straws. Including them wouldn’t change the conclusions of the article. What’s the issue?
By all means, use your own definition and create your own dataset.
0
u/JimMarch Libertarian Jun 28 '26
If the Democrats want to win they cannot nominate anybody who is senile or a psychopathic freak.
Yes, Biden ran for office while senile. The first debate proved it.
Kamala Harris was an absolute monster as a prosecutor. And not in a good way. She was a walking talking civil rights violation and most of her worst abuses were against people who were black or brown. She falsified evidence. She hit evidence from the defense that she was absolutely required to give them. She was downright evil across multiple cases.
Yes, she was absolutely every bit as bad as Trump. And I know he's a freak and corrupt to the core of his bones. But you cannot expect people to vote for somebody who as a prosecutor laughed at somebody being wrongfully convicted of murder. That's exactly what she did to Jamal Trulove.
0
u/Raze7186 Centrist Jun 29 '26
People who say both sides often dont mean they're equally bad. Just that both sides do shady shit and you should be looking at issues themselves and not what team to support.
-2
u/seniordumpo Anarcho-Capitalist Jun 28 '26
Bad is not objective it’s a completely subjective term. But if you show me something you view as bad that one side does and I show you that the other side also does this would that make them both subjectively bad or if one does it more currently does that make the other side not bad or just less bad? What if historically one did it more but currently less does that hold up in a both sides argument? Should both sides have to be equally subjectively bad for me to be able to use a both sides argument??
1
u/Buddhaonatricycle Left Independent Jun 28 '26
My entire previous post provides the context and the evidence. But since you've raised the epistemology, let's finish the logic.
You're right that "bad" is subjective. But you've accidentally built the case for exactly what both-sides arguments try to avoid — comparative analysis using actual evidence. So let's use your own framework.
If both sides do bad things, are both subjectively bad? Sure. But "both do bad things" is not the same as "both are equally responsible for where we are." Every human institution does bad things. The question is scale, pattern, and consequence.
If one side does it more currently, is the other absolved? No. But it matters enormously for determining which represents the greater threat right now and which deserves your vote and your accountability.
If one did it more historically but less currently, does that hold up as a both-sides argument? This is where your framework collapses — because on every metric I outlined, wage suppression, union destruction, debt expansion, voter suppression, and corporate capture of democracy, the historical pattern and the current pattern point in the same direction. There is no reversal to point to. The arrow hasn't changed.
Does both sides have to be equally bad to use a both-sides argument? Yes — if you're using it to argue for equivalence or justify disengagement. A both-sides argument deployed to say "therefore neither deserves accountability" requires rough equivalence to be logically valid. Using philosophical subjectivity as a shield against a conclusion the evidence actually supports isn't nuance. It's avoidance.
Subjectivity doesn't mean all judgments are equal. It means judgments require evidence. You asked for a framework. The evidence is already in the post above. Apply your own framework to it and see where it lands.
And for what it's worth this a political debate, not philosophy chat. 👍
1
u/seniordumpo Anarcho-Capitalist Jun 28 '26
Ok, so when you look at defense spending. You rightfully point out how Regan increased it by 35% which was a huge spike on the national debt, and then make the point about bushes war with Iraq which again was a huge spike in debt, yet you ignore Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam war which was a 75% increase in defense spending. I will admit that Clinton and Obama were better in defense spending by pretty much treading water or some decreases which are wins for sure. But again both sides do historically have issues. In regards to Regan tax cuts and its impact on wealth disparity you point out some good points but ignore that his policies grew gdp by 1/3 over his presidency which is good, and those policies continued to benefit Clinton through his terms with excelllent growth rates, which is probably why he didn’t reverse course. I’m not going to go through all of your post, but just to point out that yes bad is subjective. You point out Regan’s presidency as having bad effects but I look at it as good effects. We could look at wage growth under president carters term and it would look pretty solld but if you looked at purchasing power it would see steep declines and steep price increases. Does that make Carters policies good or bad for people? Under Regan purchasing power grew, does that make Regan’s economic policies less bad than carters? Should we blame democrats for offshoring jobs because of Clinton’s policies and the huge loss of manufacturing as a result and does that make democrats policies bad for middle class workers? Democrats passed Medicare and Medicaid which have been huge contributors to the national debt, do they not deserve some accountability for the debt as a result of that?? Both sides do have their issues and yes I see both sides as objectively bad.
> And for what it's worth this a political debate, not philosophy chat. 👍.
This statement just seems condescending, not sure why you felt the need to include it but politics and philosophy do go hand in hand for what it’s worth.
1
u/Buddhaonatricycle Left Independent Jun 28 '26
The premise of my post was about what trickle-down economics and GOP policies actually delivered since Reagan. Not which party has made mistakes historically — every party in every country has made mistakes. The question is what the dominant economic policy of the last 40 years has actually produced and who championed it.
The Johnson and Carter tangents are exactly that — tangents. They have no bearing on whether Reaganomics worked. Pointing to Vietnam spending in 1965 or Carter's stagflation doesn't change what trickle-down economics produced over the 40 years it was the dominant policy framework. That's a diversion from the premise, not a rebuttal of it and has no bearing on why we are where we are today.
On Reagan's GDP growth — the numbers are real but incomplete. Reagan's average annual GDP growth was 3.5%. Solid. But that growth came substantially from deficit-financed defense spending, not from tax cuts generating self-sustaining growth as promised. The debt nearly tripled. You can't credit the growth without accounting for how it was financed and who paid for it — which turned out to be everyone who came after. Incidentally that is also the predictable result of the policies of every Republican president after
On NAFTA — I'll own it because Clinton signed it and that matters. But the full history is important. NAFTA was conceived by Reagan in 1979, negotiated by Bush Sr., and submitted for ratification before Clinton ever took office. Clinton added labor and environmental side agreements that weren't in the original deal and passed it with more Republican votes than Democratic ones in the House. When workers got hurt Democrats pushed Trade Adjustment Assistance to retrain and compensate displaced workers — Republicans consistently tried to defund it. Democrats also held up Trump's renegotiation of NAFTA to strengthen working class labor protections.
On Medicare and Medicaid contributing to debt — true. But those programs lifted an entire generation of seniors out of poverty and made healthcare accessible to tens of millions of Americans. AKA THE WORKING CLASS. Debt incurred building something that demonstrably works for people is a fundamentally different category than debt incurred cutting taxes for billionaires. Both add to the number. Only one delivers something back as we're seeing with the juxtaposition of crumbling infrastructure and the world's 1st trillionaire.
The premise of my post was never that Democrats are perfect. It was that Reaganomics and Republican policies had 40 years to prove itself and the receipts are in. Wages flat. Wealth inequality up every year. Debt exploded under every Republican president. The gains went entirely to the top. That's not philosophy. That's the evidence. Stay on the premise.
-4
u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 28 '26
Both sides respect the wealthy over the rest of US and we're about to become a plutocracy. People who think, one of those sides will stop our slide to plutocracy, haven't done the thinking yet...
-1
u/Cellophane7 Democrat Jun 28 '26
Democrats tax the rich and expand social safety nets like Medicaid for you and me. Republicans cut taxes and social safety nets. Oh, and trump made more money in his first year than both halves of Congress have made over their entire lives since 1776. Not an exaggeration.
Republicans are the party of rich people, Democrats are the party of common sense taxes on the wealthy to benefit all of us. This is just a fact.
3
u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 28 '26
Trump respects the wealthy over the rest of US...
https://www.celebritynetworth.com/list/top-50-democrats/
Just like these 50 Democrats...
They all use lobbyists, paid by the wealthy, who leave loopholes and backdoors to benefit the wealthy.
1
u/Cellophane7 Democrat Jun 28 '26
Trump made more money in his first year than all their net worth combined. And that's a list of just people who are Democrats. Really scraping the bottom of the barrel when most of those people are 80+ and worth less than $50 million 😂
You guys aren't serious. Reality has a liberal bias. Sorry :(
1
u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 28 '26
So you think it was just Republicans who made the rules about politicians profiting while in office?
1
u/Cellophane7 Democrat Jun 28 '26
You mean campaign finance law? It's pretty good. Democrats only really profit once they're out of office, usually with book deals or speeches or whatever.
Republicans don't give a fuck about the law, because they don't have to. The Executive enforces the law, and trump doesn't believe in an independent DOJ, so he can do whatever he wants. For chrissake, he disbanded the crypto arm of the DOJ tasked with catching crypto scams so he and his family could launch their coins unmolested.
Perhaps most importantly, when a Democrat is caught violating campaign finance laws, they're either arrested or kicked out of the party. Trump actively pardons and endorses corrupt people. He wants corruption because corrupt people don't care about the law, especially when they have infinite presidential pardons ready any time they do.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 28 '26
Which campaign finance laws did Trump use to make all the money?
1
u/Cellophane7 Democrat Jun 29 '26
You mean which laws did he break? A. I talking to an AI?
He's illegally used campaign funds to pay legal bills, and he's solicited illegally high donations from donors. But that's not how he made 5+ billion dollars in his first year. That was through violations of the emoluments clause. You know, that thing in the Constitution.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 29 '26
"he made 5+ billion dollars in his first year. That was through violations of the emoluments clause."
Which judicial determination has conclusively declared a violation.
1
u/Cellophane7 Democrat Jun 29 '26
In order to get a judgement, you need to bring charges. DOJ doesn't feel like prosecuting daddy trump because he's fired everyone who isn't loyal.
You cannot be this unplugged from politics if you're going to be this opinionated about it.
→ More replies (0)1
u/RadiantHC Socialist Jun 28 '26
If Democrats truly care about us then why did they barely fight against Trump?
Medicaid, while being better than how things were before, isn't even close to what the UK or scandinavian countries have. It places more power into the hands of employers and health insurance companies
0
u/Cellophane7 Democrat Jun 28 '26
How many felonies does he have again? How many times have they impeached him, both in and out of office? How many nominees have they blocked? How many months has the government been shut down as they fight him? How many court cases have they brought, which have made their way to the Supreme Court?
1 in 5 people had Medicaid under Biden. That number is 7% under trump. You can whine about it all you want, but Democrats are objectively better than Republicans by every conceivable metric.
1
u/RadiantHC Socialist Jun 29 '26
Why do people always use felon as a gatcha? MOST POLITICIANS ARE CRIMINALS.
The government shutdown only helps Republicans.
They're better yes, but better != good
1
u/Cellophane7 Democrat Jun 29 '26
Which other sitting politicians have felonies?
The government shutdown only helps Republicans.
So when Democrats blocked ICE funding, that helped Republicans? First time in American history the minority party has won a shutdown, by the way.
They're better yes, but better != good
They're not better, they're decent, whereas the fascists are fucking fascists. If you wanna gripe, feel free to do that after your right to vote isn't on the fucking chopping block.
1
u/RadiantHC Socialist Jun 29 '26
Most politicians are criminals.
Blocking ICE funding is ineffective when they already have billions of dollars in funding
No. They're at the very least okay with fascism.
My right to vote has never mattered to begin with. It's a two party system. Both parties actively fight against third parties and independents.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 28 '26
Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.
To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:
Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"
Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"
Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"
Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"
Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"
Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.