Well, there are a couple of differences there. First, Trump is an excellent media manipulator. Every moment that pundits thought would be a campaign-ending gaffe became free publicity. He got the equivalent of $2 billion in free media coverage from CNN alone.

Second, Trump didn’t actually say or do anything that would upset the donor class like progressives do. He was more vulgar and crass, and the RNC was certain he would cost them the election, but he wasn’t an existential threat to billionaires the way Bernie was.

However, if you want an example of how the RNC behaves when someone like that is running, look at the 2012 Republican Primary. Mitt Romney was the frontrunner, but the base was unenthusiastic about him and looking for someone different. Ron Paul polled in second place literally the entire campaign cycle, but the pundit class gave him no coverage. They wrote endlessly about Chirs Christie, Rick Santorum, and even Herman Caine, all of whom had brief moments as the frontrunner, but they completely ignored Ron Paul. His staunch libertarian beliefs threatened the defense industry and Wall Street, so the media and the party just pretended he didn’t exist. (For the record, Ron Paul was a wack-job and I’m glad he never became president, but the Bernie parallels are strong).

…except the centrists and neoliberals went to Trump. Hillary and Harris both spent their campaigns courting them, and they both lost. Biden, for all his faults, had Bernie help him craft a progressive policy agenda and won. The Democrats undermine the progressive wing of their own ostensibly left-leaning party in primaries and other intraparty conflicts, then get to the general elections and get wrecked because neoliberals would rather vote for the Republicans than pseudo-Republicans.

Democrats didn’t flip on gay rights until Obama

And Obama didn’t flip on gay marriage until the end of his first term. Biden came out in favor of it, which forced Obama’s hand, but it wound up being the right move; it energized the base when enthusiasm was starting to wane. Then, under Obama’s leadership, they continued to do nothing to establish gay marriage at the federal level.

No, dude…just…no. You tried to claim that saying, “a Republican founded the EPA,” and, “Republicans ended slavery,” were the same, even though there was a century of history between those events. More importantly, Nixon is exactly the person you don’t want to make that argument about, since Nixon is the very person who pivoted the party towards its modern strategy of using the politics of racial aggrievement to get working-class whites to vote against their self-interests. Going back to the Civil War, or even the early Civil Rights era, things get ideologically murky, but you can draw a straight line between Trump and Nixon.

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.

deleted by creator

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.