You already pointed out that the Republicans are against the minority, which is a really bad thing and makes them poor leadership. If the Democrats are doing the same thing, ignoring the minority, doesn't that also mean it's a really bad thing and they're poor leadership?
Contradictory isn't really the right word to describe it. It would just be extremely illogical. Some people will work for free, in the hopes that they will eventually get paid. It doesn't take long before those people eventually leave and go elsewhere if they don't get paid in due time. It makes little to no sense for someone, or a group, to only ever vote for one party, even though that party never does anything for them.
Hiding small things, sometimes many, in (big) bills, happens all the time, and most are aware of this. That's one of the easiest ways to get things through that would be controversial enough that the people wouldn't accept and their political representatives would vote against. The media tends to only cover the main portion of the bills, so the people don't get to find out, unless they go to lesser known media, or take the time to read the entirety of the bills themselves. Both sides are guilty of this.
As for how bills and laws would be different, this is the same type of point that Dulfite and Torillian were trying to make, which were poor arguments because both were suggesting things will or could be a certain way, when both were just taking educated guesses at best, and really didn't know because they couldn't. Nobody can know for certain what the past could have been, or what the future will be.
What I pointed out about the republicans is that they make laws that put society 50-200 years backwards, and yes, it can be infered from that that republicans are against minorities. However, the minorities we are talking about are groups such as people of color who can't do anything about this specific trait of them. This is not the same thing as a minority trait that is defined by the mind, such as what gets called social justice warrior and the like - or as Torillian put it, the Twitter left. What is bad is the discrimination of people based on their color of skin or sexual orientation, and that is what the republicans do; this shouldn't need to be spelled out, but I guess I have no choice when you are acting deliberately obtuse.
The far-left repeatedly voting for the democrats without getting any of their ideas turned into reality isn't illogical. You argue that they would go elsewhere, but as I pointed out in my previous post, there's no viable alternative in the political system of the USA. The only "elsewhere" is the republicans who will actively work against anything that could be considered left ideas. Therefore a vote for the democrats who will do nothing good in the eyes of the far-left is still preferable to abstaining or voting republican, because power in the hands of the republicans will only ever result in bad things in the eyes of the far-left.
That both democrats and republicans insert small things into larger bills is just about the only sound point you've made, but it isn't a point that anyone in this thread will contest anyway, so it's moot.
Lastly, my point about bills and laws didn't deal with hypotheticals, but actual bills and laws that have been passed in states where republicans have control. There are no "what ifs" here, but only irrefutable reality.
Well if we're going to use the moot point deflection, then what do POC's have anything to do with the crazy left which is what's being talked about here? Unless you think the POC's fit in that category, in which case you said that portion of the left is crazy and is being ignored.
As for irrefutable reality, everything the Republicans do isn't racist, though it's almost always claimed to be nowadays, at least by the crazy left. To also believe that every single Republican and Republican controlled government is automatically going to be worse for you is absolutely illogical. Nobody is forced to vote and for good reason.
So a good point means nothing if it doesn't lead to furthering the argumentative portion of a discussion? Since when is this was a requirement?
This is how it's supposed to work though. Republican controlled states, especially so called red states, where the majority of conservatives vote in Republican politicians, ask for those types of bills and laws, and if they don't, they vote for another Republican, or in most states, a Democrat eventually, if they don't get their way. Same goes for most Democrat controlled states, especially so called blue states.
The problem is the federal government trying to force every state, and all voters in them, to adhere to Democrat or Republican bills and laws. Beside what's already been widely agreed upon and established that makes the country a whole through federal government, each state should be left to it's own devices. Most who really don't like or won't accept a states politics will vote them out, or leave, and eventually the state has no choice but to change for the better or pay the price.
Allowing the system as is to work is slow, and causes some chaos and pain, but works out best. Forcing the system from the very top down, causes more and more chaos, and eventually major pain.
Lastly, I realize no state would ever be even close to 100% conservative or liberal voters, so yes, it'll never be close to perfect for everyone, but it's not about being perfect, it's about being the best it possibly can be at this point in time. The best way to do that, the majority of the time, is to focus on smaller separate groups, not a focus as if all are one.