I don't try both-side politics, I try neither-side american politics. The faulty assumption is, that you have support either the one or the other. You can reject both.

And which (even small) improvement? I already pointed out with actual data, that there was no improvement with either party in the past decades.

Rejecting both turns into supporting the worse side in a two-party system.

Europeans, North Africans, Arabs, and Indians (from India) too are descendants from the same offshoot of the group of people that left Africa in prehistoric times. The exterior differences like skin-tone is purely due to geography; Indians stayed in the sun and stayed darker, Northern Europeans didn’t and they became lighter.

The obvious answer: why not change the two-party-system? Nearly every democracy in developed countries has more than two relevant parties, the US is the obvious deviation. So the obvious thing for any rational person is to stop relying on just two parties.

And no, a winner-takes-all is not the reason, you don't need proportional representation to fix that. This two party system is not created by actual rules, it is created by the stupid legend that choosing third-parties would lead to demise, just like you do. If you are aware that more countries outside the US exist we could look there: France, Japan, the UK all have winner-takes-all systems, and they all have more than two parties. So stop spreading inaccurate bullshit, the US could've more than two parties as well.

And as I shown with actual data and not just claiming everyone disagreeing is stupid like you do, the other countries do better in regards of wealth distribution.

Winner-takes-all is the reason. In a proportional voting system, voters know that there's a high chance that their vote won't be lost (it is when countries require a threshold which usually ranges between 3-5% of all votes). In winner-takes-all, your vote will be ignored if you didn't vote for the winner. Third party candidates in the USA are usually even more clueless and useless than the two major parties. Your suggestion is akin to recommending Germans to vote the AfD because neither the CDU or SPD have fixed the big problems during the last three decades. As messed up as it is, the Democrats happen to be the most left option in US elections despite being clearly located on the right side of the political spectrum. All that is why both abstaining and voting for a third party lead to the same result of raising the odds of putting the Republicans in power.

You've waived your right to call my post bullshit when you selectively quoted it. That's not how you debate if you have actual points.

France, Japan, the UK don't exist, because you say it, it is so, winner-takes-all creates a two-party-system. OK, fine you win. I guess reality loses against your flawless arguments.

Again though, if it's a socioeconomic issue, then efforts to address it should be based on socioeconomic status, not race.

The solution to discrimination is to end discrimination, not discriminate in the opposite direction.

Again: there are a lot of policies, but how does it impact who. And again both Republicans and Democrats offer policies that are intended to help the poor. But my obsession with Gini is an oobsession with actual effective policies. If these policies would've an wider effect, we would see an effect on the Gini. But it doesn't happen, because these policies are widely ineffective or nulled with other policies pulling in the other direction. I don't deny that on paper the policies of the democrats look better. But in the end they are widely ineffective. That has a wide array of reasons, but the main one is, that the democrats are fearful of changing the system substantially. Bandaids are not helping if the bleed is too big.

The Yes minister scene is more supporting my view: killing all the poor wouldn't actually help, as they do the work (aka create all the wealth) in the first place. Which is mentioned in the sketch. So I don't know why you post it, you probably didn't really understand it.

The thing is: if the US wants real change of their system, they have to stop thinking in the way of either republicans or democrats. They have to break out of it, try actual new policies.

And look, europe and canada aren't on the same path, although often enough our politicians try to emulate the stupidiest stuff in the US. Britain though had their own Reagan called Thatcher, you see the effect around the same time. For Canada and France only projected data (single points) reaches back to that time, but shows they started with wealth distribution in the seventies around the place the US were, but they actually dropped the Gini - effective policies. For Germany I don't see such projected data, so I don't know. But as you can see the leading european countries and canada are now around the same place in Gini index - a much better (more equally distributed) place than the US. The US needs to learn that an alternative to the dem-rep death pendulum exists.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?end=2023&locations=US-FR-CA-GB-DE&start=1963&view=chart

BTW, if you look closely, germany had their own version of the Thatcher/Reagan influence in form of Gerhard Schröder's "Agenda 2010". Which you can see the effect of from 1998 (when Schröder took office) to about 2005. Schröder was member of the center-left (yes left) party SPD, yet he was too strongly influenced by the neoliberal bullshit.

I think the US has the major problem of the two party system. The best justification for Dems many come up with is "but the Reps are worse". In most european countries this doesn't fly. After the Schröder fuckup the SPD lost a lot of support - without that flowing directly to the center-right (CDU), it strengthened other left parties like The Left and The Greens (directly after the Schröder era, now has some time gone). The US needs to understand that real solution lie outside of their two-party system.

People are indeed exhausted. When you keep calling someone racist just because of their skin color, then its a chance they will become exactly that. Thats why progressive activists who thinks the color of your skin is what defines you and you should always "act your color" has set race relations back 50 years in the US. Trying to undo everything Martin Luther King Jr. and many others have tried to do. Its not ALL on them, but being not racist isnt enough anymore. You have to be anti-racist and complain about everything all day every day. Its....well exhausting.

The color of a persons skin is one of the least interesting thing about someone imo. It doesnt tell me anything about who they are and what they like.

I am white, I have never in my life been called racist, so I'm sure it's not a skin color thing, I wonder what you've been doing to be called that...