Yes, Republicans and Democrats are the same thing, they are both liberals. Now I do not mean liberals in the sense that one has what we now consider more left wing views than the other, but rather that they both fall into the category that Liberalism is the primary Ideology behind both parties. Both republicans and democrats, desire limited government, capitalism, no single religion, and protection of individual rights. You may argue that in some cases they do not believe in such ways, however all in all the majority of the policies come back to these four values. To say that they are not Liberals is rather absurd, as liberalism is really what took the place of what we call classical conservatism, where the nobles were obliged to rule, as they had the necessary means to do so.(so it was believed)

Here in America we've narrowed the political spectrum to be democrat or republican. However you'll find that the true spectrum is as follows from left to right; communism, socialism, liberalism, classical conservatism, fascism. James Madison wanted power to be split up when he designed what we have come to know as American politics, he was afraid of tyranny. The two house system although not his original idea, preserves Madison's idea that none of the power will be concentrated, especially since your state only gets two senators. Now theoretically you could still have many parties with this system except it's a winner take all system as well. This allows for no coalitions, but rather a black and white win or lose. If in another country and a coalition needed to be formed you would most likely find groups like democrats and republicans coming together to oust the socialist and communist coalition.

When looking at what actually divides the parties, it is not their ideologies, but the system itself. Madison successfully made a system where the same ideology, can be torn apart and prevent a tyrant, and in doing so we've been taught to believe that democrats and republicans are the same, when in reality they share the same beliefs.

And as for the Republicans being the party of Lincoln, and the democrats white slave owners, we find that Lincoln wasn't breaking from his beliefs, that he was a capitalist, and believed that a "free market" would in fact be better than a slave driven market. one way or the other his goal was to unify the country.

Also the democrats are capitalists, and really had to shift their party views with FDR, after reconstruction.

Parties change. Once more I reiterate that both parties are LIBERALS, and because of this we are really losing out on seeing whats beyond liberalism.

The question of the debate is a little misleading: of course they're different, in certain ways. But let me rephrase it in the way I think the debate creator meant it: Are Republicans and Democrats the same thing, in terms of their primary purposes?

To that question, I say yes. If voters want real change-- the ones who are smart enough to realize what that means-- they are unable to get it through the 2-party system we have. The candidates will have different public platforms, yes, but some issues are not discussed because they are not up for debate in the minds of the people who pull the strings. Whether you know it or not, any candidate who makes it this far has already been corporate-approved. The others tend to get locked out of debates, or get contemptuous coverage in the [corporate] mainstream media.

If by the "same thing" one means corrupt, power hungry organizations that do little more than perpetuate a constant campaign mentality and create tensions increased tensions between people of different parties, then yes both the Republicans, the Democrats and any other political party are the same.

There are members of both parties that are extremely different (Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton), but when the parties are generalized they are still not the same thing exactly, but the differences are so trivial that they aren't worth observing.

We are currently governed by corporations and a rich elite who demand fealty to their agendas. Any man or woman from either party who attempts otherwise is apt to get shot (Kennedy). Hence both parties cower in the face of corporate pressure. Look at our congress and senate -- majority Democrats -- and the way they do the military/industrial complexes bidding with nary a by your leave, just like the Republicans. Nor is Obama any exception -- twisting and tying himself to AIPAC and the new Cold War on an analysts whim.

One can only wonder what the corporations have got on the lot of them.

I'd try to keep things simple this time, because I don't know much about politics since knowing politics has nothing to do with and\or has no parallel metaphor in my experience of things. This one's a little rumor-engaging-strategy game for me. Nobody knows those people anyway, one way or another, to be in it, is to be covered with it.

I believe that the answer of this question depends on who you ask, and how wide is their spectrum of valid opinions, beliefs and ideals.

If your spectrum was X, and then X went up by Gay Rights, and now you have Y which is X plus "There should be a right for people who like to sleep with people from the same sex (too) to have their partner's given name printed into their identification documents".

Whatever X thought of R's and D's, Y knows exactly where he puts his badass finger when he sings the "curse of those who have no dignity, in this country".

Then Y gets shot accidentally, he decides to convert to Z and vote for R's, cause obviously, he's not gay, and for one to be able to carry those things will require one to prove his responsibility and accuracy, Z will say that he is just being rational.

One day, Z might get high, or convince himself that modernism was a mistake, and that when movie met industry went down the whole art with it, and that mass-media is a brainrace of loudmouthing, and none of those videoized bedtime stories are more then a rumor anyway, and that our depart from nature's hands had critical implications on us speedy speeders.

Then he probably converts to @ or what have you, and yes, R's and D's are pretty much the same with some choice over the outcome of some bizarre mental images infra-warfare.

I literally agree with everyword HGrey and Lemonhead said. I voted them up. But my arguement is on the other side. There's deep problems with our current system, mostly stemming I think from the influence of special interests and that the news media is now a for-profit industry. But we are not in any position at this point to vote independent or stay home. Look at what's going on in Georgia - the U.S., the one and only "super power" left in the world have become so weak that we're impotant to do anything more than say, "Bad Russia, you shouldn't do that." England and Germany have more influence at this point.

We need to get our act together now. I think Obama can start us in the right direction, and I know McCain is more of the same (look at his advisors.)

I'll defer to Bill on this one:

‘I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.’ ‘I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.’ ‘Hey, wait a minute, there’s one guy holding out both puppets!’ ”

Ralph's vs. Albert sons (or add your local major grocers). A duopoly is more concerned about competition form without. Compare prices and you'll see that 99 percent are the same.

Political parties cannot compete with the fresh ideas from independents or minor parties because anything new can threaten the existing power bases. Take taxes. There have been several (five?) Presidential Commissions that have examined the IRS and income taxes. Each came to the same conclusion that they are unfair, convoluted and liable to special interest manipulation. Nothing comes of it for the simple reason that the two parties have the same incentive: use the tax system to increase their power. Each candidate can claim he or she is going to raise taxes on the other guy and cut them for you. Bogus, typically, but the power is there.

Either party can stray, as developed at y-2008.com in the media questions, but over the long term, they have to use the duopoly to keep outsiders from stealing the show.

The sole purpose of the Democrat and Republican parties is to provide platforms for people to run for political office. These two parties are not rooted in the issues, but in winning elections. They are exactly the same in this way, and in the fact that (despite what some may have been lead to believe) both love America and both want to see Americas succeed. Issues arise, however, in the fundamental difference of the two parties; Republicans believe that government should be less involved, while Democrats believe government should be more involved.

The two-party system should ideally have parties that take conflicting sides on all major issues and thus hopefully eliminate the demand for mainstream third parties. This is pretty much the only way democracy can ensure minority views are heard in a two-party system.

So our Paleocons and Paleodems were pretty well-defined if we remember: liberal economics, isolationism, and conservative social vs regulated economics, interventionism, and liberal social. Clinton pretty seriously upset the balance, IIRC, when he put the democrats on a more liberal economic policy, but that pretty much was reverted by 2004. Dubya upset things when he got all big-government with businesses and interventionist abroad. In spite of attempts by McCain to be mavericky through Bush's reign, he and all the other Republicans (except Ron Paul) toted the Bush Doctrine in their 2008 campaigns. So then Ron Paul got all popular because the interventionist capitalist opinion was not represented in 2008.

The point is that Dems and Reps are the same right now in most issues except social policy and Iraq (though both seem to be interventionists), which is really a small piece of the political pie. However, I think that in four years you will see a return to Paleocon principles as the Reps try to get their act together.

There is no doubt that they are the same..what we need is a emergence of a third party, somewhat libretarian party who seem to use common sense rather than siding with the far-right or far-left. That way, everyone sacrifices and wins at the same time.....and no, I am not trying to promote the Libretarian party nor am I a member.

they are very similar, that is why not many people vote because they are both supporters of the right wing and corporations. as you can see with obama and bush. one decided to attack iraq, and the other one pulled the troops out of iraq and relocated them to afganistan.

They are the same... both groups support truly anti-liberal corporate socialism.

No. Look at their stances on the issues. There are very clear differences on almost everthing from pro-choice/abortion to the Iraq war.

Some Independents like to say they're the same because it's easy and lets them be rebellious without having to think about specific issues. That may not be fair in many cases, I was independent until Bush's second term, but it is true for many.

I'm independent on almost every issue, but I pick the party that overall is closest to what I believe because I understand a democracy is a compromise, and when people refuse to compromise eventually it leads to things like genicide and ethnic cleansing and fascism.

That said the two party system may not be the best system. George Washington predicted it was a bad idea. But for the time being this is what we have, and with everything going on with our relations with other countries, housing market, job market, the environment, gas prices, and on down the line, now is not the time for protest votes or to stay home. Figure out which candidate you think can help the U.S. get out of this mess, and vote.

It would be easy to say that the two parties are the same, especially if you go with the theory that all of "Washington" is corrupt and venal. That would go with the "pox on both their houses" point of view. Unfortunately that view misses the evidence of the vast differences in the party philosophy even if it doesn't address the similarities between individuals.

Is Joe Lieberman a Democrat or Republican?

Unfortunately, both parties usually fail to follow their own philosophies - in 2006 Congressional Democrats were elected in large numbers in part because of their seeming mandate to end the Iraq War. However, the ensuing months saw a major escalation in the number of troops by the Republican administration that was sanctioned by the newly elected Democratic congress.

The Republicans have longed portrayed government and taxes

as the scourge of America, whereas the Democrats produced the New Deal and Great Society.

When the Clinton Administration ended the Republicans were left with a healthy budget surplus and a fairly robust economy - tech bubble not withstanding.

By enacting massive tax cuts for the wealthy while mandating massive expenditures, the Republican administration seems to be trying to bankrupt the government. In the words of prominent anti-tax neocon Grover Norquist, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub" One could wonder if the GOP is bent on destroying the government

The Republicans claim the desire to make government efficient but just view the differences between FEMA operated under James Lee Witt (Clinton Administration) and Micheal Brown (Bush Administration).

well, if you want to go by the roots of the words... yes. (both mean people hold power). but as for views... not really.

1. economic views are very different. democrats believe more in redistributing wealth while republicans are against that.

2. gun rights. democrats tend to be against the right to hold arms (although, obama is for it... probably not on the same scale [NRA] but at least a pistol).

3. gay rights. republicans tend to be against gay marriage and gay adoption. only conservative democrats (mainly NAACP and poor catholics) are also against it. and republicans are also usually against gay adoption.

4. republicans tend to want to deport illegal immigrants, democrats are usually for open borders.

5. republicans feel that English is our official language, democrats feel that schools should teach classes in both languages.

and many more things that takes too long. they're different.

They are very similar in political views but not identical.

Please don't call me a republican.

Saying that they are the same is ignorant considering that there are many different qualities that distinguish them from each other.