That’s true and yet doesn’t change what the chart shows: the growth in private sector jobs has been higher when there is a Democratic president than a Republican one. If it’s a real correlation, obviously he is the one linked to it, for whatever reason.
It’s pretty obvious the claim those jobs are all being transferred to the public sector under the Republican presidents is specious, so that leaves your claim that all these things are cyclical and who’s in office is all a perfect coincidence.
That seems like too large a coincidence for me, but there are ways you could try and establish for it, for instance comparing other countries. All I have looked at here in detail is debt for the UK, Canada, and Australia; I won’t try to reconstruct that, the rises and falls don’t all match each other, and yet in the first two cases still mostly lines up with what party is in office. So to me it suggests that the influence that has is not illusory.
At any rate, you haven’t provided any real evidence it doesn’t have an influence, just argued that it must be. I assume you’d give the same for all the other charts and figures provided? Well, sorry, but I don’t see any real support for your claim it’s nothing but inherent cycles but faith the parties are interchangeable. I don’t share that faith; to me the data looks like the different policies of different candidates genuinely do make some real differences.
I do share the idea that the nation shouldn’t be divided. As I said, I want people to stand behind peace, social equality, and justice, and part of that means caring when someone is more or less opposed to them. It’s no coincidence extremist policies go with rabid partisanship, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence they go with America’s unusually low voter turnouts either.
