>"but this idea that all the problems with US politics are because of Republicans"
Maybe the problem is for people not realizing that they are dealing with 2 buttocks of the same butt. And it does not look like said butt is by the people / for the people. Instead of fighting between each other people could be better off doing something productive about it.
How is this possibly the case when there are vastly different laws and rhetoric from both sides? I get you are implying that both are there are too benefit the wealthy, which is true, but they also do other things that affect people. Abortion, gay rights, spending, taxation, gun laws. How are they the same???
Then you ask people to do something productive, what? Revolution? That will likely destroy the US economy and possibly the global economy for years. It will also lead to a large loss of life. There's also no guarantee what happens after will be positive. Look at France, post revolution they had a bunch of shitty governments/dictators and then the king came back.
The whole point of "both sides the same" rhetoric is to discourage people from doing anything political, that's why it never has any actionable suggestions. The only option to get something done in the US is to shack up with one of the political parties and hope you can get enough altruistic people elected to dismantle the broken two party system. "Both sides the same" wants to preempt you from thinking there is a "less bad" side to choose, so that you don't choose a side, so that nothing ever happens.
Both sides are OBJECTIVELY not the same. You can easily look at voting history and see that, even if you don't believe anything you hear on the news.
Think long and hard whenever someone tells you this fallacy.
"The whole point of "both sides the same" rhetoric is to discourage people from doing anything political, that's why it never has any actionable suggestions. "
I also believe this is the goal of many of the "both sides" people. Since not voting benefits Republicans[1] I believe those people have an ulterior motive to help them win
Your link is completely different argument to the one being made here about "non-voters"
Non-voters are people disgruntled with the current 2 party system, the largest voting block in that group are libertarian leaning people who do not break democrat.
Your link it talking about various voting laws, which largely impact densely populated cities, things like ballot harvesting, out-of-precinct ballot disqualification, and other such rules that have an outside impact on voters in urban cities which are largely democrat.
"things like ballot harvesting, out-of-precinct ballot disqualification, and other such rules that have an outside impact on voters in urban cities which are largely democrat."
What about local elections, most elections are isolated to a particular area? The reason the Republican lawyer made that statement was to show standing. Meaning , why would the Republican party be effected by the various voter restriction laws. They said because it benefits them if voting rights are restricted.
If you are saying that the laws in question reduce the ability of democrats to vote vs republican (as in reduces the numbers more in cities vs rural?) What's the difference? I'm connecting turnout to their success.
Here's a more clear analysis though it is an opinion piece showing that young voter turnout is important for the democrats.
> Then you ask people to do something productive, what?
Use direct democracy at the state level, where state constitutions provide for this, to replace single-member FPTP systems with multimember proportional systems, creating multiparty democracy, and then advance it state by state until it becomes a national norm.
Since when productive means Revolution? Productive in my book means forming new party with the proper platform and winning the election. Meanwhile protests against most egregious actions will do.
>"It will also lead to a large loss of life. There's also no guarantee what happens after will be positive."
That had never stopped the US from instigating and supporting numerous revolutions and coups.
As for your last comment first - that's something the US government has done in the past and I'm talking about what the population might do. Completely unrelated.
I mentioned revolution as an example. Forming a third party will cause one of the main parties, probably the one whose voters are least fundamentalist, to lose. That's what happened in the past.
Maybe the problem is for people not realizing that they are dealing with 2 buttocks of the same butt. And it does not look like said butt is by the people / for the people. Instead of fighting between each other people could be better off doing something productive about it.