Republicans are obviously and undeniably the worse party.
But dems are still pro cop, pro war on drugs, anti-union, pro wall street, pro billionaire, pro fossil fuel,etc etc. And you kention beanie sanders but the democrat party actively suppressed him and fucked with the primary rules to make sure he won’t get into power. They are still just the status quo, rich and powerful enabling neo liberals, that like to dress up as progressives by making token gestures that don’t really matter.
So I will obviously vote democrat because they will do by far less harm, but it’s still just choosing to be stung on the arm rather than stung in the urethra.
I think the wording is the problem. You seem to agree on the issue, but for them, “both sides” means both sides are the same amount of bad, and for you it just means both sides are bad.
The point is, both sides are bad. But as you both say, Republicans are undeniably a thousand times worse than democrats. So saying “both sides” is still bad in my opinion because it implies it wouldn’t make a difference and both sides were the same amount of bad.
That was what I was trying to convey in my original comment. “Both sides” is both stupid argument and true, depending on what context you’re using it in and what point you’re trying to make with it.
“Well both sides are bad so im just going to not vote/ vote republican since it doesnt matter” - Bad argument
“Both sides are bad, so we shouldnt assume voting dems into power is actually going to fix our problems” - good argument.
I live in India and we still have socialism in place in many things , while we have our problems , when I see america specific problems that we dont have in India , they are mostly rooted in corporate greed , and since both dems and gop are funded by the rich , they will always have a position that is rather right leaning !
I mean I literally said that much in my comment.
Republicans are obviously and undeniably the worse party.
But dems are still pro cop, pro war on drugs, anti-union, pro wall street, pro billionaire, pro fossil fuel,etc etc. And you kention beanie sanders but the democrat party actively suppressed him and fucked with the primary rules to make sure he won’t get into power. They are still just the status quo, rich and powerful enabling neo liberals, that like to dress up as progressives by making token gestures that don’t really matter.
So I will obviously vote democrat because they will do by far less harm, but it’s still just choosing to be stung on the arm rather than stung in the urethra.
I think the wording is the problem. You seem to agree on the issue, but for them, “both sides” means both sides are the same amount of bad, and for you it just means both sides are bad.
The point is, both sides are bad. But as you both say, Republicans are undeniably a thousand times worse than democrats. So saying “both sides” is still bad in my opinion because it implies it wouldn’t make a difference and both sides were the same amount of bad.
That was what I was trying to convey in my original comment. “Both sides” is both stupid argument and true, depending on what context you’re using it in and what point you’re trying to make with it.
“Well both sides are bad so im just going to not vote/ vote republican since it doesnt matter” - Bad argument
“Both sides are bad, so we shouldnt assume voting dems into power is actually going to fix our problems” - good argument.
I live in India and we still have socialism in place in many things , while we have our problems , when I see america specific problems that we dont have in India , they are mostly rooted in corporate greed , and since both dems and gop are funded by the rich , they will always have a position that is rather right leaning !