Democrat vs Republican, HELP

[BellaRisa]

Howdy folks,

Without being mean or making jokes (well, not too many 🙄 ) can someone please explain the differences between these two political parties? I know, I'm 30 yrs old and I have a college degree, but to this day I'm not sure about this. I've read eleventeen websites and I'm just more confused 🙄 Most of my friends are republicans, and all they tell me is that republicans will keep us from being bombed by Osama and Saddam's last remaining cousin Stinky Hussein, and so I should love them . I imagine there's more to it than that, help!

Bella

 

[Shem the Penman]

A joke I heard long ago ...

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is this: When confronted with a man drowning 50 feet from shore, a Republican throws out a 25-foot rope and yells "Swim for it!", while a Democrat throws out a 50-foot rope and then drops his end and goes off looking for another good deed to do.

 

[TklDuo-Ann]

It used to be that there was a real difference between the parties. They stood on very different ground on every issue in the book. Now? Pick a party, any party. There really isn't much of a defining line any more. They stand for most of the same stuff. But, now they argue about who came first with each idea. It's all political game playing and we're the losers. Frankly, I think all elected officials should dissolve party connections once in office. All it does is waste time. I registered republican only because that primary was more influential in what could be done for positive change when I registered locally. The only reason I'm even registered in a party is to be able to vote in the primaries. I look at the issues and those claiming they'll do something positive about them. Whoever has the most viable proposals gets my vote.

Ann

 

[Admiral Trouser]

Well, to be fair Ann, you guys have it easy. Party-ties have never been all that strong in the American System, due to a number of reasons, but perhaps the most prominent being the fact that many senators are more concerned about what there constituenties desire at any particular moment, since it is they, and not the Party that they subscribe to, that elects them into office. Often, what a constituenct wants is the opposite of what its Senators patron party wants, and therefore there has been a gradual distancing from party political ties.

Anyway, to answer the origonal question...or to try to, at least...well, plainly put, Democrats are Liberals, Republicans are Conservatives. The latter occupies the middle-right of the political landscape, while the former occupies the middle-left. Within each there are individuals who's own personal opinions on various issues cause them to shift towards the outer extremes of the spectrum (Communism for the Left, Nazism for the Right), but on a whole, they're all somewhere near the centre of it all, so as not to alienate anyne too much and harm there chances of election.

Still, its generaly considered that Big Business favours the Tax-cutting Republicans, whilst the Democrats frequently pick up the support of Pressure groups such as GreenPeace, Amnisty international etc. This is probably due to the idealogical differences between the two, such as they are: Republicans favour "Self-Help", and the withdrawel of the Government upon the daily running of people's lives. Hence tax-cuts and suchlike. Democrats would like to term themselves as more "socialy responsible" in reflection of the Republican attitudem claiming that government holds vast power, and it should use it to help those that need it most. Hence a general distain towards doing anything with taxes other than raising them, lol.

Meh...there's loads more to it, I'm afraid, i'm just picking on what I can remember from my course, if you want more info from me (thats assuming I was helpful lol) then...pm me 🙂

Hope that sheds a little light m8.

AT

 

[Krokus]

Politics!?!?!?!?!?


...Hey, look, there went my interest.

 

[MadKalnod]

Within each there are individuals who's own personal opinions on various issues cause them to shift towards the outer extremes of the spectrum (Communism for the Left, Nazism for the Right)
AT

Generally your post had it surrounded, Admiral, except for one or two quibbles.

Nazism was derived from National Socialism, and as such falls on the same side of the scale as Communism, sharing its attitude of "The State is much more important than its individual citizens, who exist solely as replaceable cogs in the machine." I'd say the Theocrats are a better example of rightist extremism, as they are only interested in the power and influence of the State as long as it reinforces the power and influence of the Church. Still, I read recently that the political spectrum is a circle, and the extremes of both ends meet at the bottom.

And while it's generally held that Big Business is conservative, I don't know if that's entirely accurate. I mean, the overwhelming majority of farming in the U.S. is run by Big Agribusiness, rather than by the stereotypical gray-bearded family patriarch in a straw hat upon his tractor, and I've yet to see a single instance of any Agricorp turning down the huge Farm Subsidy payments that get bigger every year. Further, the media are among the biggest businesses around, and they're so reliably entrenched in the Democrat voting block that many celebrities live in fear of being "outed" as Republicans because it will effectively end their careers. Also, I recently read that during the 2002 election campaign cycle, more than 90% of campaign contributions from single individuals over $1,000,000 wnet to the Democrats, and 64% of contributions from single individuals under $1,000 went to the Republicans. So, even if the Dems used to be the "party of the little guy", I don't think that can be said quite as accurately anymore.

 

[BellaRisa]

Thank you Admiral and Madkalnod, your responses have been quite a help! If you have insight regarding which party can best protect our country (as nonjudgmentally as realistically possible) I'd appreciate it.

Bella

 

[ShiningIce]

But then again look at the considerable amount of wealth owned by the Republican Presidential canidates.

 

[BellaRisa]

Politics!?!?!?!?!?


...Hey, look, there went my interest.

I was talking to the adults who *would* be interested hon, no need for you to have even opened the thread 🙂

Bella

 

[AffectionateDan]

Ah, but see, then....

I was talking to the adults who *would* be interested hon, no need for you to have even opened the thread 🙂

Bella

He wouldn't have been able to offer us that witty insight. 😉 😛 🙄

Seriously, though... I almost gave this one a pass myself, because almost invariably, this is a topic that leads to nastiness. And while I'm one of the most patriotic people I know, I detest our current 'regime'. It's not about leading the country anymore, it's a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. The two-party system is what's rotting this nation from the inside out. America is the new Roman Empire. Anyone who would try to make a difference for the better (and stood a chance of doing just that) would be a threat to those entrenched in the seats of power now. And for that, they'd undermine them to the point where they WOULDN'T stand a chance. And that's just working within the system, mind you. Voting is your right to revolution, to preserve what we've worked so hard to build in this country without tearing it apart with internal strife. But as it is, your "vote" counts for jack shit (pardon my french), having to choose between the lesser of two evils every damned "election". "Who'll be the LEAST damaging/embarrassing candidate?" is the choice we're given every time. Why? Because they KNOW they've got us by the short hairs. Those paltry few of us who even BOTHER to vote these days believe for the most part that if you don't vote either Republican or Democratic, you're throwing your vote away, that any third-party candidate doesn't stand a chance, so if you vote for whomever you think WOULD do a good job, you're basically taking votes away from one fo the ones you know is going to win anyway. You think that we've gotten to this point on accident? Coincidence? I think NOT. Largely due to our own apathy and faith in the system. But it's gotten to the point now where people just don't have that faith anymore, or hope for that matter, so they just don't bother going to the polls. Don't even get me STARTED on that last presidential 'election'. So we slide further into the machine. 1984, here we come...

 

[BellaRisa]

I almost gave this one a pass myself, because almost invariably, this is a topic that leads to nastiness.

I know, believe me I thought for quite awhile before posting the question! I was reeeeally hoping that the grownups here would be able to give me unbiased information on the basic differences, which for some reason no one that I know offline could accomplish 🙄. My business partner has a bumper sticker that reads "Friends don't let friends vote democrat" and you can NOT ask him about it, his eyes glaze over and he yells alot...

Again, my thanks to those who actually answered me without getting ugly, I knew someone could do it!

Bella

 

[Admiral Trouser]

To Affectionate Dan:

And there's the reason why the current regime will always stay on top if things stay the way they are: Voter apathy is essentialy solipsistic, with those that express it best often believing that they are a minority in there thinking, and that there options on the Grander Scale (ie, voting for a third party candidate) of things are limited if not non-existant in terms of what good it would do.

Although I agree totaly with you on the idea that both parties, both in America and also here in the UK, have neigh more than a hairs-width between them in terms of idealogical distinction, I'd like to point out that voter apathy, if it were ever harnessed properly, could very *easely* cause a total regime-change. For example, if you were to convert that vast majority of american non-voters into beleiving that, as a unified voting force, they could easely elect into office a third-party candidate, then they would perhaps go out there and do it. Often such apathetic types claim that they'd be *willing* to vote for a Third party, but they feel that since no-one else will, why bother?

Such an argument is utterly circular, isn't it? I just feel if all the apathetics got off there back-sides and used there vote properly, which is to say that they shouldn't try to second-guess the system and merely vote for who they want to be President, then perhaps things would very definately change...

AT

 

[sushi854]

While I also generally accept Admiral's description of the American party system, I would disagree that there is a distancing from party ties. In fact, I see a strengthening of party ties, at least at the federal level. It seems that more people today in the US are voting for a party rather than the candidate to represent them. While this is fine in unitary-style democracies, I feel that this system is rather innefficient under our federated system. Politicians who do not religiously tout their respective party's dogma are unlikely to assume the most powerful positions within the federal system (ex: John McCain's presidential bid). To keep this on topic, I offer this as another way in which the two parties are more similar than different

 

[Krokus]

I was talking to the adults who *would* be interested hon, no need for you to have even opened the thread 🙂

Bella

You got a problem with what I said?

 

[DutchTickler]

There is a simple rule of thumb: the Republicans are evil because they want to take money away from the poor to give it to the rich. The Democrats are good because they want to take away money from the rich to give to the poor.

Moreover, the Republicans want to turn the USA into a Christian version of Saudi-Arabia.

 

[Admiral Trouser]

Simply speaking, Dutch, that just isn't true.

Although i agree with you that, on the face of it, the Republicans are in it only for themselves (lest us not forget that they are Conservatives, who's only reason for existance upon creation was to get into power and stay there for as long as possible), to simply count all Rebuplicans as the same in ilk is to assume that the're all following the same aims through the same paths, which are, according to yourself:

they want to take money from the poor and give it to the rich

Republicans are, by nature, rather patriotic, and see taking money away from *anyone* as a necassary evil. Remember, again, that they're all about interring *less* with the lives of Joe Blog on the street. Whether you see there methods as stealing from the poor is entirely your own opinion.

There are corrupt politicions on all sides of the fence. Republicans just happen to be the least subtle and clever about it 😉

AT

 

[BellaRisa]

You got a problem with what I said?

Why yes, I do.

You made no attempt to answer my question, Krokus, and didn't contribute any information to the thread. You certainly don't have to be interested in politics, but if you don't care for the thread topic, why bother posting in an unhelpful and callous manner? Forgive my making an issue, but the "who cares?" type post does nothing other than annoying those who *are* interested. And making the poster appear very, very young.

I'm hoping you'll reply in a polite manner.

Bella

 

[Krokus]

Why yes, I do.

You made no attempt to answer my question, Krokus, and didn't contribute any information to the thread. You certainly don't have to be interested in politics, but if you don't care for the thread topic, why bother posting in an unhelpful and callous manner? Forgive my making an issue, but the "who cares?" type post does nothing other than annoying those who *are* interested. And making the poster appear very, very young.

I'm hoping you'll reply in a polite manner.

Bella

You see, here is where your agument is flawed....To be frank, I don't have to answer your question. Since when did you become the authority as to what I can and can't post? And how was my post a "who cares" post? Earth to bella: it was an I DON'T CARE post, not "who cares". There went MY interest, not anyone elses.

 

[Admiral Trouser]

'Seem to be showing an awful lot of interest in a thread that doesn't interest you, Krok.....

😉

AT

 

[Krokus]

I was simply letting people know I don't care...if you got a problem with that, than thats just it. It's your fuckin' problem, not mine.

 

[Admiral Trouser]

lol....looks like you got out of the wrong side of the wrong feppin house this morning, lol...

And no, I really don't care. I just do it for shits and giggles 😉

AT

 

[Krokus]

I just find it kinda funny how certain people around here can get away with saying certain things, but if someone comes along and says something so little like I did, it's the end of the fucking world. Christ, and you are trying to call me immature? Get a life. (not directed at you AT, in fact, none of my posts have been)

And for the record, I don't have any interest in this thread, bella made this an issue, not me.

Well, provided anyone else (particularly bella) doesn't make an issue out of nothing, and doesn't blow anything out of proportion that nobody else seems to care about once again, im done with this thread.

 

[DutchTickler]

I think you're behaving like a moron Krokus.

 

[ShiningIce]

And so the dreaded Flame War returns to the TMF ...........

 

[Krokus]

I think you're behaving like a moron Krokus.

...And since when did anyone care what you think? All you have done is cause this to continue....way to fuel the fire, moron.

I didn't even mean to start a flame war. If a little someone hadn't started an issue out of nothing, this wouldn't be a problem.