Ok. I'll try and explain it to you. It probably won't help, but I'll try anyway.

You made sweeping, declarative statements based on generalized conclusions. Your argument essentially boils down to: if Obama and this faceless, nameless, amorphous blob of people you call Democratic senators had done everything differently, specifically, everything the way you think they should have, then everything would be different, and Trump wouldn't be president.

Well, yes. Obviously. If everything had happened exactly the way you wanted it to, we'd be living in a utopia. Or, at least, your version of one.

But that's not how history works. You don't get to look backward at an outcome and simply declare, "If this had happened instead, everything would have been fine." That's counterfactual reasoning without actually establishing the causal chain. You would need to demonstrate that the alternative action was realistically available, that it would have produced the desired result, and that there weren't other variables that would have changed the outcome.

Take the period after World War I. You could argue that if the victorious powers had pursued a different economic and political settlement with Germany, reduced the severity of the reparations burden, and avoided some of the conditions that contributed to political instability, Hitler's rise might have been less likely. You could even argue that different decisions might have changed the trajectory of European history entirely.

And, sure, in hindsight, governments could have made different choices. Maybe World War II could have been avoided. Maybe the Holocaust could have been prevented.

But that's not what happened.

That's precisely why statements like "If Obama and the Democratic senators had done X during Obama's administration, Trump wouldn't be president" are so intellectually lazy. You're taking an enormously complicated historical and political process and reducing it to a hypothetical in which the people you dislike made the correct decisions according to your preferred outcome. That's not an explanation of what actually happened. It's hindsight dressed up as analysis.

Moreover, if you think Democrats and Republicans are fundamentally different in the ways that actually matter to the underlying structure of American politics, then you've completely lost the plot.

Obviously, there are meaningful differences between the parties, and those differences can have very real consequences. But both parties operate within the same political and economic system, both depend heavily on wealthy donors and corporate interests, and both have repeatedly failed to address structural problems that should have been addressed decades ago.

We still have an absurdly expensive and heavily privatized healthcare system. We have weak antitrust enforcement compared with what would be necessary to meaningfully challenge corporate concentration. We have no federal term limits for Congress, and we continue to allow members of Congress to participate in stock trading under rules that are far too permissive.

So my objection isn't that Democratic policies and Republican policies are literally identical. They obviously aren't. My objection is that, in this particular argument, you're pretending that the identity of the party in power, or a handful of supposedly correct decisions by Obama and Democratic senators, provides a simple explanation for an outcome that was the product of decades of political, economic, and social forces.

That's the part I disagree with.

You can construct an infinite number of alternate histories where everything would have turned out differently if people had simply made different decisions. That doesn't make those counterfactuals useful explanations of reality.

History happened the way it happened. The interesting question isn't "What should they have done if they knew exactly what we know now?" It's why did they make the decisions they actually made, what constraints were they operating under, and what structural forces produced the outcome we got?

That's a much more useful conversation than pretending the entire problem could have been avoided if Obama and some Democratic senators had just played the game correctly.