[metmom]

So my rejoinder to Republican critiques is: Yes, governance is flawed in some blue parts of America, but overall, liberal places have enjoyed faster economic growth and higher living standards than conservative places.

So define *higher standard of living*.

Because the condition of SF and LA don't look like higher standards of living to me.

That would be a HUGE step down for rural flyover country folks like me.

Besides, I don't believe their life expectancy is higher. Living in city is neither safe nor stress free both of which work massively against longevity.

[pigeoninthepark]

You could live in a big city your whole life and never encounter any crime.

Meanwhile I have driven through rural areas where people at the gas stations and diners will tell me to keep driving past X and Y areas otherwise I become a victim of meth zombies or self-sovereign types who will shoot from their trailer homes right at your passing vehicle.

[Freest Republican]

define *higher standard of living*.

Until maybe 60yrs ago-

standard of living=living space, access to calories, access to medical care.

When they figured out that the US poverty stricken enjoyed a higher standard of living than most of the rest oif the working class world, the definition was changed.

The results are graphic in this thread from soup to nuts. Ultimately, up became down and the Cubas and Singapore are held out as examples of superiority while the leftists can live in their densely packed tuna cans and pretend that is superior.