Republicans vs Democrats, what gives?
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
Republicans vs Democrats, what gives?
I'm making this thread asking for your help.
I would appreciate it if somebody would inform as to what the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats are, learning about the ideology they're selling would be nice, but i'm more interested in practical examples, like in what way a party would handle a situation differently than the other.
The political scene overhere is analogue to yours (two dominant political parties), and i'll be @#$ if i've figured out a difference between them yet.
Thank you for your replies.
I would appreciate it if somebody would inform as to what the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats are, learning about the ideology they're selling would be nice, but i'm more interested in practical examples, like in what way a party would handle a situation differently than the other.
The political scene overhere is analogue to yours (two dominant political parties), and i'll be @#$ if i've figured out a difference between them yet.
Thank you for your replies.
- Testiculese
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4689
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:01 am
- Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10133
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
guys, lets not get carried away here please
Apart from the inevitable humorous replies and the ones that i hope are humorous (religion,archaic thinkings and stuff), Birdseye's and bash's post cought my attention:
Bash: Can you please explain what you mean?
Birdseye: As i understand, the current administration is republican, has their administration kept up with the "large deficit spending, military build-up. For privitization of many common services."
When the democrats where running the show, where they keeping up with the "not quite as large deficit spending or military buildup. Not for privitization." stuff?
Apart from the inevitable humorous replies and the ones that i hope are humorous (religion,archaic thinkings and stuff), Birdseye's and bash's post cought my attention:
Bash: Can you please explain what you mean?
Birdseye: As i understand, the current administration is republican, has their administration kept up with the "large deficit spending, military build-up. For privitization of many common services."
When the democrats where running the show, where they keeping up with the "not quite as large deficit spending or military buildup. Not for privitization." stuff?
- Testiculese
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4689
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:01 am
IsAB, keep in mind there are social/cultural issues and there are economic issues, and often folks treat each in isolation. Hence you'll hear people refer to themselves as economically conservative but socially liberal.
That said, let's look at a social issue: same-sex marriage. In general, conservatives don't feel that marriage should be redefined and if forced to re-evaluate it the decision should be made by the people through a popular vote. Then the government must respond based on the decision of the people, either by doing nothing or set the current definition into unchangeable law or by redefining the law. Whatever the majority decides. Liberals, in contrast, tend to feel same-sex marriage is a right but don't want to risk a popular vote so they attempt to alter the definition of marriage through the courts or legislatures. Then the people must respond to the decision of the government. Whatever the *enlightened* minority decides. That's what I mean by government either following the people or leading them.
Caveat: I don't want to paint things as too black-and-white here because those in favor or against redefining marriage is not strictly drawn down the line between liberals/Dems and conservatives/Reps. But it does illustrate what I meant about the role of government as either reactive or pro-active.
That said, let's look at a social issue: same-sex marriage. In general, conservatives don't feel that marriage should be redefined and if forced to re-evaluate it the decision should be made by the people through a popular vote. Then the government must respond based on the decision of the people, either by doing nothing or set the current definition into unchangeable law or by redefining the law. Whatever the majority decides. Liberals, in contrast, tend to feel same-sex marriage is a right but don't want to risk a popular vote so they attempt to alter the definition of marriage through the courts or legislatures. Then the people must respond to the decision of the government. Whatever the *enlightened* minority decides. That's what I mean by government either following the people or leading them.
Caveat: I don't want to paint things as too black-and-white here because those in favor or against redefining marriage is not strictly drawn down the line between liberals/Dems and conservatives/Reps. But it does illustrate what I meant about the role of government as either reactive or pro-active.
- Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10133
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
- Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10133
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
- MehYam
- DBB Head Flapper
- Posts: 2184
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
- Contact:
Interesting. Quick definitions of Democrat/Republican can reveal a lot about the person they came from.
Aside from differences on some of the major issues (abortion, spending, health care, stance on Iraq), I don't have a strong sense for how either party should be identified. I just tend to support Democrats for two main reasons, 1) they seem more willing to explore both sides of an issue, and 2) they are less connected to the religious right, which I don't trust. That said, there are plenty of Republicans over the years that satisfy those two conditions, and two I can quickly think of that I'd choose over Bush.
Aside from differences on some of the major issues (abortion, spending, health care, stance on Iraq), I don't have a strong sense for how either party should be identified. I just tend to support Democrats for two main reasons, 1) they seem more willing to explore both sides of an issue, and 2) they are less connected to the religious right, which I don't trust. That said, there are plenty of Republicans over the years that satisfy those two conditions, and two I can quickly think of that I'd choose over Bush.
-
- DBB Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2367
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Israel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/a ... efault.stm
That is such a big chunk of red on the map for such a close call. And why the east and west split by a big chunk of republican down the middle. Has it allways been like that?
edit: and if i click on past elections ill find out
That is such a big chunk of red on the map for such a close call. And why the east and west split by a big chunk of republican down the middle. Has it allways been like that?
edit: and if i click on past elections ill find out
- Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10133
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
It's really the heavily urban areas more than east west or north south.Flabby Chick wrote:...Has it allways been like that?...
Take out L.A., San Francisco, N.Y. City, Chicago, etc. and you will see even more red.
I bet someone will have a Red - Blue map by county, like this one from last time, instead of by state and you'll see the real divide.
- Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10133
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Republicans: very conservative on social issues, liberal government spending, and generally ethno-centric
Democrats: conservative on social issues, liberal government spending, and generally promotes minority rights.
As of right now, the only thing that really differenciates the two parties are moral values issues. Gay marriage, abortion, etc.
Democrats: conservative on social issues, liberal government spending, and generally promotes minority rights.
As of right now, the only thing that really differenciates the two parties are moral values issues. Gay marriage, abortion, etc.
-
- DBB Benefactor
- Posts: 2695
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Sextland
- Sergeant Thorne
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4641
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2001 3:01 am
- Location: Indiana, U.S.A.
- Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10133
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
-
- DBB Benefactor
- Posts: 2695
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Sextland
i was moreso agreeing with Beo than getting at that.
for the most part, im pretty sure the wealthiest of people earned it, and no, i dont think they should be necessarily paying more, but now the underdogs are at a loss, and the rich at a gain...
"... while passing tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of the population. At the same time"
from: http://www.mylocalbands.com/punkvoter/bush.asp
to back up: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi= ... &s=scherer
for the most part, im pretty sure the wealthiest of people earned it, and no, i dont think they should be necessarily paying more, but now the underdogs are at a loss, and the rich at a gain...
"... while passing tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of the population. At the same time"
from: http://www.mylocalbands.com/punkvoter/bush.asp
to back up: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi= ... &s=scherer
yeh, but then, the 1% of the population who are the richest in the world get a tax cut...
The beauty of American capitalism is that anyone is free at anytime to do whatever it takes to move into higher tax brackets. There are a wide array of groups and organizations formed specifically to facilitate that move. If you are a minority or a woman, you have even greater opportunity. All that is required is the will to do it.
The top 1% of wage earners pay 37.42% of all income taxes. The top 5% pay 56.47%. The top 10% pay 67.33%. The top 25% pay 84.01%. The top 50% pay 96.09%. The bottom 50% pay 3.91% of all income taxes.
Even better, the top 5% not only carry the majority of the tax burden, they are vilified while they do it. You seem to be of the opinion that being rich is somehow wrong. If you pay more into the system, you get more out. It was NOT a tax cut for the super rich.
- Sergeant Thorne
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4641
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2001 3:01 am
- Location: Indiana, U.S.A.
I'm not necessarily putting values attached to what I was suggesting. All I'm saying is that the Republicans seem to care less about what other countries think/do than the Democrats do.Sergeant Thorne wrote:Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but what's unnatural about being ethno-centric when it comes to international issues? We're Americans.
- Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10133
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Unless they bomb our cities, then we care about them...or at least their target grid coordinates...but yea, democrats are way too concerned with being friendly to a bunch of unfriendly peopleTetrad wrote:All I'm saying is that the Republicans seem to care less about what other countries think/do than the Democrats do.