First reply: "Giving Nixon credit for the EPA means you support Republicans and therefore Trump."

Second reply: "NIxon was so long ago he doesn't count."

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim pointing out a good thing Nixon did means I support modern Republicans while also claiming Nixon happened so long ago that he's not connected to modern Republicans.

It's also just factually wrong to say, "it was so long ago, its like saying they're the anti-slavery party." Nixon represents the turning point for the Republican party, where they abandoned their support for Civil Rights and embraced the Southern Strategy. He's basically the turning point for where the Republicans became the party we know today. He's the reason it's bullshit to point out Republicans are the party of Lincoln.

If you're talking about the Respect for Marriage Act, that was passed a decade after the Supreme Court established gay marriage as the law of the land. The overturning of Roe made Democrats decide that they should codify gay marriage, since they saw how badly failing to codify abortion rights turned out. It also reopens the door for Civil Unions and passed with large Republican support, so I wouldn't exactly call it a huge win for Democrats.

As for the EPA, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but you are absolutely incorrect. Nixon proposed the EPA and NOAA through executive order, and it was later ratified by Congress. It's possible you're referencing some sort of dispute Nixon had with Congress on how they intended to create the EPA, but he absolutely supported it; it was his idea.

Eh, I saw a lot of the same shit on Reddit. I think you'd have to go back at least 7 or 8 years to find a version of Reddit that wasn't trash.

That is absolutely not what I'm saying. I'm correcting objectively false claims you're making; environmental laws were not all Democrats, the Democrats did not do anything at the federal level to pass, "full gay rights with marriage," and the meme and OP did not say, "both sides bad." Those points are a statement of fact, not an argument.

That is absolutely not what I'm saying. I'm correcting objectively false statements you're making; environmental laws were not all Democrats, the Democrats did not do anything at the federal level to pass, "full gay rights with marriage," and the meme and OP did not say, "both sides bad." Those points are a statement of fact, not an argument.

Well, .world has a lot of users who understand this, but the loudest voices (who are often times moderators) are definitely Democrat apologists. Then again, some of the other instances, like .ml, have the opposite problem, and are full-blown tankie/authoritarian apologists, so it's kind of a, "pick your poison, damned if you do, damned if you don't," situation.

Democrats took America from gays are illegal, to full gay rights with marriage.

Gay marriage was legalized at the federal level by a conservative-leaning Supreme Court. The only time a Democrat acted on same-sex marriage nationally was when Bill Clinton banned it by signing DOMA in 1996.

Environmental laws have been all Democrats.

Nixon created the EPA.

If Democrats did nothing, Trump wouldn't have signed 76 executive orders reversing Biden orders on his very first day.

If Democrats passed legislation, Biden's achievements couldn't be undone through executive order.

The parties are not the same, especially now that one of them is openly fascist, but you're giving Democrats credit for things they did not do. Also, the meme doesn't say they're the same, it describes the rachet effect, which is an accurate representation of how Democrats behaved on multiple issues. Look at how their economic policies have changed over the last 30 years, or how their views on immigration policies have changed since Trump was elected.

Reducing the proposed capital gains tax from 44% to 28% and abandoning Medicare for All for medical debt easement are objective metrics that show the Democrats becoming less progressive in 2024. If you want to delude yourself into thinking the opposite is true, i can't stop you, but I'm bored of proving you wrong.

Her capital gains tax proposal was 28%, much lower than Biden's proposed 44%; abortion rights and legal Marijuana are comfortable center-left territory in 2024; easing medical debt instead of abolishing it is the definition of a centrist solution, and she doesn't get credit for supporting Medicare for All when she abandoned that position in the middle of the 2019/2020 primary.

She absolutely did not have the same things. Biden's BBB had Medicare expansions, universal Pre-K, and the expansion of the child tax credit. Harris ran on small business loans and first-time homebuyer's credits. Biden ran a working class platform that Sanders helped write, while Harris ran a middle-class campaign with Mark Cuban.

That's the cool thing about denial; no matter how much information I give you, you just say, "Actually, that progressive thing is centrism," and continue your delusion.

Yeah, if you say it enough times, maybe it'll become true. ¯(ツ)/¯

I will give him credit for trying fairly hard to get his agenda through, especially in the first 2 years. He kept trying to find ways to get student loans forgiven without Congress, even when the courts repeatedly blocked him, and he did try to get some parts of Build Back Better that got cut in 2021 into the Inflation Reduction Act. He certainly tried harder than Obama to deliver on his platform.

He then abandoned the populous economic platform in 2024 and tried to pretend that letting most of his agenda get blocked by his own party was a huge accomplishment. He also tried to get to Trump's right on immigration, materially supported a genocide, and refused to step down despite clear cognitive issues, so all-in-all, 2024 was a bad campaign.

Again, nonsense. He ran in 2008 in things like direct homeowner bailing outs, then passed things like HAMP, which tried (and failed) to inventivize lenders to refinance bad loans. Even in 2012, when he made less bold and specific promises, he made income inequality the center of his campaign. He always ran as progressive, not a centrist.

I once read a tweet that was something to the effect of, "The number of Democrats needed to pass meaningful legislation is always (N-1), where N=The Current Number of Democrats in Congress." I think about that a lot.

No, this was the liberal policy.

He ran on a public healthcare option, bailing out homeowners, regulating banks, closing Gitmo, ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Saying he appealed to centrists is revisionist nonsense.

And only one candidate (Clinton) won by going to the right. Obama ran as a progressive (and governed as a centrist-technocrat) while Biden ran on a progressive platform (which he couldn't get passed because of Manchin and Sinema).

"C'mon guys, just a little further to the right and we'll start winning! Ignore the last four times we lost by doing this and remember the one time it worked in 1992!"