I'm not affiliated with any political party, but I tend to avoid supporting the Democratic Party due to concerns about potential issues such as inefficiency, overspending, and lack of practical solutions. My question is why do people continue to support a party that has a track record of inconsistent results. Are you comfortable with the possibility of bureaucratic inefficiencies, excessive government spending, and impractical policies?

The answers to this question are complex and could be attributed to individuals treating politics as a competition, similar to a sports event, where they rally behind their chosen side regardless of the outcomes. This phenomenon holds true in many instances and clarifies why people often base their decisions on faith rather than concrete evidence. Another contributing factor is the influence of money in politics and the reach of political media. Although challenging due to regulatory hurdles and political deadlock, these issues can be addressed. The first step would involve enhancing education, while the second would necessitate reforms aimed at reducing the role of money in political processes.

In any case, I'm seeking to gain understanding and hopefully foster constructive discourse without derailing meaningful conversations. I look forward to engaging in further discussion with you!

to claim there is one political government that do not do those thing is ridiculous.
they all do .

And those are minor glitchs in the grand scheme of thing.

and again as for results, which are better between republican and democrats ?
why dont u take the empirical evidences of which states are the poorest and see if there is one political party that is over represented in that instance ?
is there any better barometer ?

One reason is that in the past 40 years, it's been Democrats who have reduced the federal deficit and Republicans who have made it worse (Reagan not pictured below, but look this up and every source says the same thing):


So to start off with the premise that Democrats are the over-spenders is just fallacious. This thread just doesn't work as a counter to the one about Republicans.

Another reason is that Democrats offer better social policies that respect the rights of others.

Hoo boy. Clever, I see what you did there, the old switcheroo! The old uno reverse! Brilliant, subtle, inventive usage of wit. Double exclam from me.

The question is more 'do they not work' or 'is it fairly easy by manipulation of data and selective wilful ignorance to pretend that right-wing policies work less badly than liberal policies'. I'm no fan of the liberal centrist project, but it's a far more tolerable hell than the hell you seem to want. I'm about ready to check myself out of this planet, as it feels like a fascist hellhole with the neolibs and libs in hegemony. If we strip away the libs, without replacing them with something better, I fear for our planet. I mean, I fear for our planet about 1% more than I already do, which is already a lot.

the results are good and the freedom is nice. so I keep voting for liberal policies.

What's your favorite result? Is it the declining standard of living or permawar that you like best?

Maybe a lot of people just don't like theocracy, science denial, and all the other brain****ery that seems to go hand-in-hand with the peculiarly American brand of "conservatism".

Usually one of two things.
1) They're drug addicts and/or losers themselves who support those policies because they benefit from them. A core function of left-wing power consolidating strategy in a Democracy is building coalitions of aggrieved idiots by claiming their unfortunate lives are really a result of 'being oppressed' and not their own life choices and life-blueprint.

2) The sheltered-naive, who aren't 'dumb' but were either born into life circumstances that sheltered them from the practical reality of left wing social policies in action, or who work in some profession that ensures they can preach certain beliefs, while never having to actually live in the neighborhoods and confront the consequences of their policies playing out on the same route where their kids walk to school.

There is a #3, the idealogue, but they're pretty rare and usually just college kids who still have growing up to do. They exist, but they usually abandon it in time once they get out of school and see how the world really works. For the most part the left is 90'ish percent #1's and #2's. Like, find someone with far left wing beliefs and start asking little probing questions about their background, you'll quickly find they can be accurately categorized as above.

Probably most people just consider them the lesser of two evils.

After the second world war, when taxes were high, we rebuilt the world and improved living standards dramatically. Wage increases matched productivity. Then the western world started deregulating in the 80s. It's only since then that we've seen any purported decreases in the standard of living.

That break between productivity and wages occured in the 70s though, and it had to do with monetary policy not deregulation.

I gave a perfectly legitimate reason in the post directly above yours, which you rather conveniently ignored. Guess it didn't fit with your narrative.

Do you think the the US economy, as looked at through various factors like unemployment rate or GDP or budget deficit (as per my chart above), have generally improved more during Republican presidencies or Democratic presidencies?

The declining standard of living is mostly for the middle/lower classes. It is quit possible he is a coastal elite, which means Democrat policies tend to be working fine for him. For example, if he is a property owner the Democrat intentionally created housing deficit, that has absolutely destroyed the tenant class, has probably made him A LOT of money in home equity.

What you wrote above is so inaccurate that it can only be explained as the fever dream of someone who rarely interacts with people who have dissimilar political beliefs.

The democrat created an housing deficit ?
How and when they did that 0o ??

It doesn't seem too hard to understand. Liberal parts of this country just seem better. We could go move to areas where republicans win 70% of the vote, but those places suck. That's before all the Trump stuff where conservatives don't even want to pretend like they're a governing party

What are some of the places where Trump got more than 70%? Do you have a list?

What's the typical murder rate in a county where Trump got more than 70%? I'd have to imagine with all those guns those people are getting murdered all the time, right?

Wait, I thought guns didn't kill people, people killed people?

People with guns kill people.

If you have a bunch of guns locked away in a warehouse they won't kill anyone, but once you start handing them out to people then murder occurs.

Oh I see, thanks for clarifying how that works.

The standard of living is not declining.


We're not in a permanent war. We just elected a president who ended our longest war and is reducing the drone war.

One war stops and another one starts.

Yeah standard of living is declining.

The united states is not at war. Russia and Ukraine are at war because Russia invaded.


Liberal policies like NATO helped keep more stability in Europe than any other 75 year period in their history. Same with the EU.