Democrats pretend to be anti-war, republicans pretend to be anti-socialism

[BossTrack]

One of the wildest things in politics is how neither side of mainstream politics actually does what their rhetoric is. Mainstream democrat politicians and their voters have a lot to say when it comes to criticizing the military industrial complex, yet not one democrat politician hasn't been a war hawk.

On the other hand, republicans are always criticizing the ideas and practicality of socialism and government control of the economy, yet not one republican president has ever reduced government spending. In short, no matter who you vote for, you are voting for more government control and less freedom - the only difference is the flavor of rhetoric you hear.

[cmg777]

One of the wildest things in politics is how neither side of mainstream politics actually does what their rhetoric is. Mainstream democrat politicians and their voters have a lot to say when it comes to criticizing the military industrial complex, yet not one democrat politician hasn't been a war hawk.

On the other hand, republicans are always criticizing the ideas and practicality of socialism and government control of the economy, yet not one republican president has ever reduced government spending. In short, no matter who you vote for, you are voting for more government control and less freedom - the only difference is the flavor of rhetoric you hear.

*tumbleweeds* your words speak for themselves and sum up the whole post quite well on both parties. Honestly, I'd say that most people would not be part of either party if they had the choice and that choice could become louder rather than set to the perception that there are only two political parties.

[Zlantann]

One of the wildest things in politics is how neither side of mainstream politics actually does what their rhetoric is. Mainstream democrat politicians and their voters have a lot to say when it comes to criticizing the military industrial complex, yet not one democrat politician hasn't been a war hawk.

On the other hand, republicans are always criticizing the ideas and practicality of socialism and government control of the economy, yet not one republican president has ever reduced government spending. In short, no matter who you vote for, you are voting for more government control and less freedom - the only difference is the flavor of rhetoric you hear.

The world lacks selfless politicians. Every politician that claims to be protecting the rights of his people always have some personal undertone. I have stopped listening to their promises and the criticism of  opposition. They end up not fulfilling their political promises and opposition would end up doing what they have criticized the government of doing when they grab political power.

In my country these selfish politicians keep moving from one political party to another because their focus is not to serve the people but to exploit them.
The present government of my country criticized the past government for corruption and promised that they would fight corruption if the get political power. But their term in office has proved to be a period with highest level of looting of the country's treasury.

[Gyfts]

Many politicians are bought and sold so they very quickly sacrifice their principles and forfeit their voting power to the highest bidder. And unfortunately, voters are to blame. They're the ones that pick these people.

So it's either the politicians are incredible liars and have the unique ability to get elected over and over again, or the voters are tribal and don't pay much attention to what's going on in their countries.

U.S. congress approval rating: https://www.statista.com/statistics/207579/public-approval-rating-of-the-us-congress/

It's a wonder how you get congress people that have been in office for decades with that low of an approval rating. You'd think the entirety of the U.S. congress would be refreshed every election cycle.

[Hispo]

I have got the impression there is some sort of status quo there in the USA, kept both by the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.
I think it is the case because I have seen many countries which suffer important social and economical changes depending on the administration which takes the seat of the presidency. It is easy to appreciate it in Latin America.

My personal theory is that the American phenomenon is in part fueled for the influence campaign donations have over candidates, among other things, which I obviously do not fully understand as a foreigner.

[worldofcoins]

One of the wildest things in politics is how neither side of mainstream politics actually does what their rhetoric is. Mainstream democrat politicians and their voters have a lot to say when it comes to criticizing the military industrial complex, yet not one democrat politician hasn't been a war hawk.

On the other hand, republicans are always criticizing the ideas and practicality of socialism and government control of the economy, yet not one republican president has ever reduced government spending. In short, no matter who you vote for, you are voting for more government control and less freedom - the only difference is the flavor of rhetoric you hear.

I do agree with what you are saying. However, I question why people don't ask the candidates when they ask for votes and later when they are in their seats after winning. In any democratic setup, the government is answerable to the people who had chosen them. Now it's up to the people whether they are willing to raise their voices or to sit and bear the consequences.