D vs. R

They don’t understand that progressives, and most Democrats in general, don’t have the frothing blind party loyalty that will excuse bad behavior.

If Bill was shown to be engaging in illegal acts, then add him to the pile to put in prison. Most people aren’t going to white knight him.


Plenty of right wing folks understand that. I see opeds on The Hill periodically written in a smirking tone about now Liberals have no Loyalty. It’s also why conservatives jumped at the opportunity to play up the Al Franken allegations, as they knew that he’d get thrown under the bus by his own party. (Note: I am not commenting on the veracity of the allegations. Just that Republicans correctly surmised that with enough of them, his party would turn on him, and they took advantage of that.)


left wing, right wing - same bird that poops on us all.

I hope the criminals are indicted.
but??? I’m old enough to know better.

Just like the proverbial shit sandwich
the more bread you have - the less shit you have to eat.

1 Like

That’s still false equivalency nonsense.

“Some subset of both Democrats and Republicans are sex criminals who belong in prison” is a far, far cry from “There is no meaningful difference between the Democratic Party and the current, explicitly fascist incarnation of the GOP.”


i keep finding uses for this image–



i’m still seeing both parties crap all over the common, middle-class worker, while lining their pockets, this has not changed in the past 20+ years…

i have yet to see both parties vote term limits, or any other meaningful measure to limit the time they control the ‘elected’ position.

I dont see the senate or house membership - either side - made up of officials who represent their electoral base. I see ultra wealthy, and folks on the road to becoming ultra wealthy, completely detached from the idiots (us) who elected them.

blah blah dems, reps, blah blah nazis, hippies, blah blah - its enjoyable to watch the comments/arguments/debate from the true believers here on BB, but at the end of the day?congressional members are loaded and we are not.

If your wealth increases by 10+million while you are a public servant? system is crooked.

Please, keep defending either party as being “the one that cares”…

1 Like

I agree Democrats can be very frustrating. But if you care about results, then one party is clearly worse. That would be the party that’s been doubling down on race-baiting, misogyny, homophobia, climate denial, anti-intellectualism, and disproven trickle-down economics. Almost all of that since at least the time of Nixon.

This is more than merely opinion - the impact of both parties is measurable in real-world results and is pretty significant. The GOP in power has been proven:

Among other things, these are basically the results you get when you have one party that actually believes in being more in step with expertise, rather than denying science and history.

None of this makes the Democrats angels. Just better for the country.

Which among other things is why Bernie Sanders and AOC are working with the Dems and not the GOP.


You’re forgetting worse for women’s rights, minority rights, voting rights, LGBQT+ rights… Those things matter too, of course. It hardly matters if the economy is humming along for white men, if the rest of us are not full citizens.


And I’m still seeing people pretend that the Democrats’ shortcomings makes them no better than the literal fascists on the other side.


Agreed. And this whole “both sides” argument completely ignores the fact that 96% of sitting dem senators are in favor of voting rights, infrastructure spending, etc., while 0% of sitting rep senators are in favor of those things. But, yeah, sure, both sides are the same :woman_shrugging:t2:


Not to mention it’s a pipe dream anyway, or maybe a pipe bomb disguised as a pipe dream. There literally aren’t enough qualified and skilled straight white men to singlehandedly work in every field while supporting a population the size of the US. At some point this ends up coming down to free labor, selective poverty for marginalized groups, and less soft and fluffy forms of genocide under an autocratic one party religious dictatorship.

Meanwhile the other side invests in the stock market and hasn’t managed to push through enough legislation to change our trajectory wrt climate change.

Not being able to accurately prioritize risk in this situation is a real disability.


well, but see, that’s where automation and part time labor comes in, giving those of us who are lesser than the more dangerous, dirty, less prestigious jobs, while white dudes get all the well-paying jobs.

I mean… yeah. That’s kind of the goal.

They don’t care about “risk” so much as they care about keeping them on top and the rest of us suffering.


Very much agree, and not at all forgetting. There’s just so much to list. : ) As noted in the first part of my comment:

…one party is clearly worse. That would be the party that’s been doubling down on race-baiting, misogyny, homophobia, climate denial, anti-intellectualism, and disproven trickle-down economics. Almost all of that since at least the time of Nixon.


I thought so… just a gentle reminder to others that it’s not just about the rights of the wallets of white dudes, because sometimes, they can be forgetful that the rest of us are actual people, too.


Wonder Years Reaction GIF


All of this. I would add, the reason behind the Democrats slide to the right since the 80s has been a direct response to the more dramatic shift of the GQP. It’s the wrong move, but it wasn’t made in a vacuum.


And 0% of sitting Democrats were involved in the literal insurrectionist attack on the capital.


Must be nice to be in a position where “how much money?” is the beginning and ending of politics for you, and questions like “do I have rights?” are unimportant distractions. A lot of Americans aren’t so lucky.

While you were worrying about your wallet, there was a literal coup attempt in your country.


Silly, everyone knows that the only rights that matter are those of money, money, money… /s


Separately, I don’t see term limits for elective offices useful at all. It sounds like an easy fix on the surface, but when you look at impact what it really does is:

a) remove people with experience in legislation just as they get it, and

b) make people even less accountable to the communities they’re supposed to represent.

We can see this specifically with the example of the new Governor Youngkin in Virginia. They have a limit of one term. So once he’s in, why should he care if what he does works for the whole state or not? And in fact he doesn’t. He’s going straight in for culture-warrior issues that ignite the Trumpian base like crusading against “CRT” and trying to assert power over schools to prevent vaccine mandates and masks…a power the governor probably doesn’t even have.

If we really want to get corruption out of politics, we need to go after how campaigns are funded. And sure, both parties get beholden to big donors and big corporate interests. But here again only one party has been trying to pass legislation to rein that in.

The Citizens United ruling a few years ago has just made everything worse since it was passed. And that was with a conservative majority SCOTUS that occurred because GWB got to slither into office in 2000…at least partly helped by a lot of false equivalence that both parties are exactly equally bad…


Exactly so. There’s been studies that looked at the impacts of term limits, and the main effect was to effectively give more power to the executive branch. Great, if that’s what you’re out to do.