Not only are you trying to deflect criticism but you are doing so with a straw-man, pathetic.
The point isn't any illusion that the Reps aren't doing those things, the point is that the fact the Dems are doing the same thing shows that they aren't any better or any less evil than the Reps.
Actually, they were very much planning on and doing mass murders in the streets and abductions to black sites, they just were doing it 1000s of kms away in Palestine instead of doing it at home.
Genocide and mass murder in the streets are Genocide and mass murder in the streets even when they're not happening at home, the fact that you think who it's being done to makes one instance "less evil" than the other is just chauvinism and white supremacy.
democratic lawmakers are demanding ICE reform.
Aka they are okay with violent forced deportations as long as it's done ✨ legaly ✨.
Why do you assume the Democrats wouldn't build concentration camps as well btw? No, because last I checked, the Dems didn't do shit about kids in cages, forced prison labor or the US's torture prisons like Guantanamo and gave more budget than Trump to the Trump border wall not to mention their support and funding of literal concentration camps in Israel. Does that sound like the actions of a party that wouldn't build concentration in the US to you? Because it sure as heck doesn't to me.
In my opinion, if the Dems had been elected they would have done it and justified it with their classic pr technique of letting the Reps vote whatever they want in congress while they stand by and pretend like they couldn't do anything about it despite their candidate being in office and go "well, the law is in the book now so we have to play along" like they did with Roe v Wade.
"LiFe iS fUll Of chOOsIng tHe lEsSer oF twO eVilS." 
Do you have any actual arguments or just instant noodle armchair truisms?
"Lesser evils" are only worth choosing if the difference between the 2 evils is big enough to have an impact. In this case it isn't, both parties are genocidal gangs with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. The only difference between the 2 is what they say when they know the public can hear them (and even then their rhetoric is getting more and more similar) and what the corporate owned media says about them, but in practice, when it comes to quality of life, repression, violence, wages, legislation, etc... aka metrics that actually matters, there is virtually no difference between the 2.
It's so funny how even in analogies you're reduced to splitting hair and grasping at straws desperately trying to find any meaningful difference between the Dems and Reps that isn't easily debunk-able because as the Dems go increasingly mask-off you have less and less to work with to make your "vote blue no matter who" spiel.
Like, you do realize how utterly negligible a difference what you just said "adds" to the metaphor right?
You heard it here folks, arming and funding a genocide isn't fascist or totalitarian
no im not, because these basic plots of land would be given to each person by everyone else; making it a novel sort of communism or socialism; it’s a pro-social, communal ownership, overall. the plots are essentially communally owned; if you die it goes to a next person. it’s completely free to you and you don’t pay taxes on it. it’s your private piece of land while you’re alive, but all the land is owned and distributed by all the humans at once, collectively.
Outside of the fact that this isn't communism or socialism at all, I have several questions.
First, imagine you get your idea in place, the land is given to peoples but it belongs to everyone collectively, great, now how do you enforce that to make sure it stays that way? Or put in an other way, if a group of jackasses with guns decides that their land isn't gonna belong to the collective anymore and shoot whoever argues, what do you do? Do you have an army or a militia on standby in case something like that happens that you can send? I'm assuming you would still have a court system, so how would it handle the case? What would be the potential sentence in this case? Do the criminals still get a piece of land afterward?
Secondly, if everyone is busy with farming their plot, what about other sectors of production? If I'm a worker at a shoe factory, I need to work at least a minimal amount on the factory so that peoples, shoe factory workers included, can get shoes. But any amount of time I work the factory is time I don't use to farm my plot, possibly not enough to feed myself. You can't take part of other peoples' harvest to help the factory workers because that would be a form of tax and you said no taxes. So what then? Do the shoes factory workers get to go 'screw this' and quit factory work to spend all their time farming, and whoever needs new shoes will have to do with what they have or make new ones themselves? And I picked shoes as an example, but what about critical medical substances like insulin? What about the water treatment plants who prevent drinking water from getting contaminated with nasty stuff and poisoning peoples? I suppose you would be very much against forcing these peoples to keep working at gunpoint, so how do you deal with this problem without forcing anyone?
Thirdly, what if a drought or some other natural disaster happens and too few crops survived on each plots to feed their owners? Again, you can't take from peoples who had a good harvest in an other region because that would be a form of taxes, and see second point for why getting some peoples to spend some of their time working on a communal farm instead of their personal farms would be problematic. How do you feed these peoples then? Where do you get the food they need from? And what about peoples who can't do farm work even if they wanted to, handicapped, the elderly?
it’s based on the idea that all people have a right to live as a native, if they want, and they should at a minimum be provided with the ability to do this. you should be able to live as a native, at a minimum, without being bothered. this system provides that basic sustenance. i think this is the minimum right of any human, which is a sort of feral animal after all on this planet like any other. the great shame of modern life is that we’ve taken away the ability of anyone to take care of themselves naturally- you have to do a series of other unrelated things just to get food- this takes care of that, from the beginning.
That's cute and all, but I think you neglected to consider where the sustenance your system provides is supposed to come from, see my questions above.
Also, I would argue that unless you envision peoples digging their farmland with their bare hands, peoples would still need to "do a series of other unrelated things just to get food", because peoples would need to get tools which means you will need at least a few peoples spending time making said tools.
Further, I think you should consider whether peoples want to "take care of themselves naturally". I have a lot of respect for farmers but I personally have no desire to become one, and since there are many peoples who do like farm-work, I would rather leave it to them than do it myself. And I'm sure a lot of peoples would agree with that sentiment, not everyone wants to or is able to do harsh physical labor under a scorching summer sun or in the cold of winter for hours on end.
no pressure to compete for a job or to start a gang, just so you can eat. youre an animal. you should be able to eat and live for free, at a basic minimum, on planet earth. you should be able to have a sustenance plot somewhere. in fact, this should be a free, basic right, that you use as basis to reform the world over. it starts with this idea. everyone has a right to be an animal- thats what they are- so everyone should have a right, and an ability, to live off nature in the normal sense. in our society, no one is given land to begin with, and its hard to get, and its all owned, and you have to pay taxes on it, and youre not just given food or this stuff called money that you otherwise need to get food, and to get that stuff called money you have to do x y and z and jump through a series of other hoops, and it becomes distanced from actual survival to a point where people feel insanely pressured, and it ends with them cheating against each other to get ahead because they think life is so unfair and hard. lets make it easy on everyone, no pressure. if you just want to live lets basically equip everyone to do that. then lets rebuild the good stuff about the rest of our society back up on top of this system. if you want to do more than just live, whats good to do? what other activities beside just living should be encouraged? can you admit that more than half the stuff that most people do is total bullshit and a waste of everyone’s collective time? science is worthwhile, art and pleasure are worthwhile. go ahead name something else. science includes all discovery, all exploration, all invention.
With no disrespect, that vision is extremely naïve. You need to think about how you can go from a capitalist world to this, how it would work in practice and so many other factors you have to consider.
There's something kinda ironic I realized.
You see, the funny thing about being as focused on the lies about China as you are is that you end up not noticing the actual problems China has.
And it shows here when you think about it: how else would you conclude that rejecting those lies is equivalent to saying China is perfect, than if you're not aware of any other problems China could have beyond what propagandists told you? Assuming you are arguing in good faith that is, which you making straw-mans don't exactly corroborate ngl.
Of course! That's totally what the meme say as we can all see and definitely not a straw-man you made up in your head. Clearly the peoples saying that think that China is perfect and can do no wrong as you can see from... erm... from... From somewhere, I don't have example but I'm sure you can definitely totally undoubtedly find an example somewhere.
It's so funny how the only way you can think of to defend your ridiculous 1984 tech-dystopia narrative about China from criticism is to make a straw-man so you can pretend that our criticism of your narrative is the more ridiculous and over-the-top of the two.
It's always nice seeing peoples willing to hear out a different perspective on those controversial issues instead of instantly clutching their pearls and not listening. We don't see it often but it's always a pleasure when it happen. All power to you friend 
.
Redsails is also not a good source, it’s openly from an ML perspective, so it’s not neutral, which you absolutely have to be when discussing history. It’s also under no pretence to be academic or accurate either, Redsails is ideologically driven rather than factually driven - so it won’t ever be critical of the ML perspective. You can use redsails to talk theory, absolutely, but not as a historical or factual source, it’s dishonest.
There is no such thing as a neutral historian. Every human has things they know and things they don't even on topics they are experts in, every human has opinions on the things they know (or think they know) that will unavoidably taint what they say, even unconsciously, and therefore, everything written or said by a human is necessarily biased. And that's saying nothing of financial interests, politics and other things that bias things even further.
This is not avoidable, the most you can do is be aware of biases and work with/around them.
If an historian or a journalist tell you that their work is "neutral" or "unbiased", they are either lying to you or don't know how biases work, and in either case you should be very skeptical of them because they are clearly not doing their job correctly.
You keep saying that but you never provide any evidence that they are. You just take it on blind faith that they are and speak like it's an obvious and unquestionable fact when it isn't. Pretty much every single messed up the Republicans did, from kinds in cages and the wall to war, the Democrats have most often followed right in their footsteps and pilled on.
How are they "far less evil" exactly? According to who? To what?
That's the only point on which we agree.
Again, this is contingent on your blind faith belief that there is a lesser evil of the two, with which I do not agree.
From before the previous elections, I've been of the opinion that Trump wouldn't be able to do worse to the Palestinian than the Democrats did even if he wanted to for the simple reason that the Democrats were already doing the worst that America could afford to do under the current circumstances.
And I've been vindicated in that belief, because like it or not, the fact is that the Republicans haven't done anything to Gaza that the Democrats weren't already doing or weren't planning to do. Even the Trump real estate in Gaza bullshit isn't fundamentally different from what was already planned to be done with the region under the Democrats.
Point is, your narrative that the Democrats did the the Palestinian genocide "less hard" than the Republicans would is objectively false. They have demonstrated themselves to be rabid Zionists and it is extremely naive to believe they wouldn't do the genocide as hard as they possibly can.
Again, you can't just claim that they are less evil, you have to show that they are. You haven't, and you never do.
Where's the "ten times" comes from Alex? Can you explain that to me? By what metric are they doing these things "ten times harder" Alex?
Again, same thing I keep pointing out in this comment. You keep saying but you never show. You never propose examples. Why? Because you don't know that the Dems are the lesser evil, you just believe it. That's why I keep saying that you're taking it on blind faith, because you are.