Why do you think that's the case? Aside from the trade-war that's going on, which is pretty arbirary;

The US has routinely spied on Europe, allowed backdoored technology to make it's way into the continent including to spy on government officials from another sovereign (allegedly allied) nation.

It's hard for me not to draw direct comparisons, because other than the surface level of "everything's fine, we have a common culture and we're all white" - I don't see them as being much different.

Of course you're right, they're not the same, we don't see them the same. But China has arguably done less to the US than the US has done to the EU.

Can you explain it to me?

At enormous expense the US rebuilt Europe (Marshall plan), protected it from Soviet Encroachment (and is still doing so to this day, apparently), and is above all reciprocal with Europe in a way that China is not.

Facebook is not banned in Europe. Spotify is not banned in America. Both are banned in China. On that basis alone both entities have ample cause to limit China's influence in their own domestic spheres.

The rebuilding of Europe was all done with loans not gifts, so it was just a money making cheme

Well for one, there's this thing called NATO. For another there isn't constant saber rattling between the EU and US.

EU and US are both fundamentally liberal democracies and not adversarial. China is an authoritarian single party state which openly declares the US an enemy...

Because of course a two party system is fundamentally different from one party one :-D

... + the liberal institutions + the non-totalitarianism + the actual, real life democracy + historical and political context + ... :D

That’s correct, yes.

I'm assuming there is irony and you mean 2 is not enough. But it's still day and night compared to single party, irony is not an argument in itself.

No, two parties representing largely the same lobbyists and sharing largely the same views are not "night and day" compared to one party. I'd go as far as to say they are exactly the same, except for pretending there's some actual, working opposition.

This was an easier both sides-ism to get away a decade ago. It stretches credulity today.

Not really - they differ in rhetorics, but not in things that matter. Democrats hadn’t denounced any part of religious fundamentalism, for example.

> Democrats hadn’t denounced any part of religious fundamentalism

This is a baffling assertion that takes about ten seconds to debunk. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/at-prayer-breakfast-obama-conde...

That’s not denouncing fundamentalism, that’s just asking to tone it down.

Can you quote a single US senator who openly called “life from conception” what it is, like they called out antivaxers?

What is, according to you, the definition of "life from conception"?

I'm a supporter of abortion but this is going to be fun I think.

The definition doesn’t matter, what matters is what it is: a fringe theory reinvented in late XIX century as part of Catholic hate campaign.

Your point being? As a reminder, we’re talking about democrats failing to condemn extremist ideas.

I was just curious, you were drifting off.

To your point, I think democrats and republicans positions on climate are very different: https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/07/us-support-for-envir...

That would go against your point that they support "largely the same ideas".

> Why do you think that's the case?

The whole history of the XX century