DescentBB

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.

Vastly overgeneralized, the Republicans are religiously motivated, and the Democrats are not as much. Republicans want to restrict everyone elses freedoms based on their own biased, oppressive, archaic thinking. They also want all your money. The democrats just want your money.

Religiously motivated? Heh.

Liberals/Dems: Government should lead the people.
Conservatives/Reps: Government should follow the people.

Republicans: large deficit spending, military build-up. For privitization of many common services.

Democrats: not quite as large deficit spending or military buildup. Not for privitization.

bash you dont think the current administration is religiously motivated? he said he gets his orders from god

Democrats have limp wrists and suck noodles thru a straw.

Republicans don't need to wear a cod piece.

Zuruck wrote:bash you dont think the current administration is religiously motivated? he said he gets his orders from god

Yea, I rememeber him saying that...it's seared into my mind. [/sarcasm]

Wasn't Kerry hanging out at the churches late into his campaign? Wonder what was being "motivated" there?

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?

You're not going to get an unbiased answer here. Look somewhere else.

I wasn't being humourous, of what I've read and of the people who represent Republicans, that side is Christian, and more into it than your average person. Democrats as I've seen are more for science. They both still lie, cheat, and steal your money.

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.

Republicans are morons and Democrats are idiots. That pretty much says it all.

Isab: Yes. If you look since Carter, the following republicans have all had larger deficits and have spent more on the military then their democratic counterparts. That doesn't necessarily make the democrats better, because many republicans think the military spending is necessary for security.

Republicans want you to be a slave to businessâ?¦

Democrats want you to be a slave to governmentâ?¦

tastes great or less filling
pepsi or coke
baked potato or fries
paper or plastic
cash or credit
dan rather or peter jennings
exxon or shell

spit or swallow?

bash wrote:spit or swallow?

Yes! That's the one I was looking for it just wouldn't come out.

What's wrong with Google???

There are MANY dissertations on the differences between the philosophies of the Dems and the GOP.

GO LOOK!

Set aside several hours for this. You'll need it to get a good overview.

Democrats: Liberal
Republicans: Conservative

Apply issues accordingly.

Democrats: Got a problem? Throw money at it!
Republicans: Screw the poor and those in need!

No Beo, help those who have legitimate need, screw those who are just looking for a fully subsidized, work-free existance.

Spidey wrote:Republicans want you to be a slave to businessâ?¦

Democrats want you to be a slave to governmentâ?¦

Very well put.

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.

MehYam wrote:2) they are less connected to the religious right, which I don't trust.

The religious right scares me as a Republican. Give them to the Democrats or their own party...

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

hmm, perhaps the closer one gets to the wider world... the less republican they vote? *shrugs, or throws hands in air, i can't decide which*

ps: florida has a gay shape, i don't like the shape. florida should do something about this.

Flabby Chick wrote:...Has it allways been like that?...

It's really the heavily urban areas more than east west or north south.
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.

i always took it as this:

podunk gutter trash - conservative

educated & classy - democrat

Zuruck wrote:i always took it as this:

podunk gutter trash - conservative

educated & classy - democrat

Someone has to be consistantly wrong to the brink of absurdity...good of you to step up and fill the bill.

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.

"No Beo, help those who have legitimate need, screw those who are just looking for a fully subsidized, work-free existance."

yeh, but then, the 1% of the population who are the richest in the world get a tax cut...

mmhmm.

Tetrad wrote:Republicans:...generally ethno-centric

What about Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell?

Of course, as Mr. Rock carefully outlines, there is a decided difference between "black people" and "niggers", which must be taken into account. These two are very definately black people.

HaAGen DaZS wrote:..yeh, but then, the 1% of the population who are the richest in the world get a tax cut...

mmhmm.

So?! If you pay tax and taxes are cut you get a cut what's wrong with that?
If you want to take from the rich and give to the poor at least call it what it is.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Of course, as Mr. Rock carefully outlines, there is a decided difference between "black people" and "niggers", which must be taken into account. These two are very definately black people.

I said generally, and leaning more towards international issues than outright racism.

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

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.

Tetrad wrote:I said generally, and leaning more towards international issues than outright racism.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but what's unnatural about being ethno-centric when it comes to international issues? We're Americans.

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.

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.

Tetrad wrote:All I'm saying is that the Republicans seem to care less about what other countries think/do than the Democrats do.

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 people