Are Republicans and Democrats The Same Thing
Side Score: 160
Side Score: 106
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.
1723 days ago | Side: yes
Although I agree that both parties are more the same than they are different, your spectrum of government is confused. At the extreme left is going to be totalitarianism and at the extreme right is going to be no government, or sometimes called anarchy. Whys is communism not at the left? It is not at the left because under communism there is no government. For instance, ask a Russian what it was like to live under communism. They will tell you that they did not live under communism. They lived under socialism. The difference is that in the Soviet Union, socialism was the goal.
Communism is a form of anarchy. It is an anarchy of private property. Nobody owns the means of production. Interestingly, if one studies pure capitalism, there is also a strong tendency towards anarchy, except that this form of anarchy is government anarchy. It is freedom to have property without unnecessary government intervention.
Communism generally tries to be accomplished ironically enough with more government (the exact thing that they are trying to get rid of). This is not only socialism for the state, but the plan is to have international socialism. On the other hand, fascism is socialism, but it is national socialism as opposed to international socialism. However, BOTH are totalitarian. That is why BOTH belong at the left. International socialism is just slightly to the left of fascism.
In the middle of the road would be Constitutionalism which is the left ended spectrum of Libertarianism. Extreme right Libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism.
So, when the democrats call the republicans fascists and the republicans call the democrats communists, guess what? They are BOTH RIGHT!!! They are both totalitarian and they are both socialist. They differ only by degree and they are not fundamentally different. We do NOT have true "left" and "right" parties but two extreme left parties to choose from.
Oh, by the way, Lincoln sold out the founding father's dream of freedom and liberty. Don't believe me? Well, then you have been taught well and socialized well. Read Marx's ten planks of communism again. Lincoln implemented 9 of the 10. Lincoln didn't slaughter as many americans as did Lenin or Hitler, but he is up there. Lincoln could not be more different than the founding fathers. The former did not believe in the principle of Independence whereas the latter did.
1688 days ago | Side: No
Communism is not the absence of government. China is Communist, as was the USSR, and both had a central government which was responsible for the planned economy. I assert that there are no other people best placed to define communism than those who are communist, ergo, communism is de facto what China's political system is.
Socialism is arguably a standard of political belief which puts people before profit and can permit the existence of limited capitalist markets but with significant restrictions.
Marxism is the absence of government, but I would argue that it is left wing as it is a natural progression of Communism once central government becomes unnecessary, according to Karl Marx - and as he was the author of the Communist Manifesto which explained the transfer from Communism to Marxism, I'm inclined to agree with him.
Socialism is not totalitarian. National Socialism is, because it incorporates the ideal of 'nation first, individual second' as well as all of the associated unpleasantness. I would argue that Socialism puts people first. Certainly, people before profit.
The Republican Party is a centre-right party. The Democrat party is a centrist party with a right lean. They both hold the capitalist / imperialist system above all else, and the individual is secondary to the importance of the free market. The Democrats aim to provide more of a welfare state than the Republicans and as such are to the left of Republicanism but there's very little in it.
The one-dimensional political spectrum goes like this:
British Liberal Democrats
192 days ago | Side: YES
i agree with you but they aren't all liberals alot of them are conservitive you can see that with the latest update on the healthcare issue. Because they are fighting againist the fact that america (or their constinuents) want the bill passed but they don't want to give up their nicely ran healthcare which they will get till they are dead and in the ground which by the way is not helping the economy any more than what they are trying to propose in the house and in the senate. which is really stupid if you ask me, and i don't know who voted for them but i am getting really pissed off with how our government is being ran, no offense to obama.
1179 days ago | Side: yes
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.
1725 days ago | Side: YES
the thing about the corporate media is that they're more concerned with what makes them money than political ideology. they cover the democratic and republican conventions cause they know that's what most people will watch. honestly, how many people care about Nader? the only time they show Nader supporters is when those retards march the streets and say shit like "fuck America" and "soldiers are baby killers".
i actually feel bad for Nader... he gets all the retards.
1724 days ago | Side: independence
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.
1723 days ago | Side: yes
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.
1726 days ago | Side: Politics
I agree with almost everything you postulate with one exception... the 2004 Presidential Election. Like you, I thought the two parties were totally in the pockets of big corporative power. My thoughts were that Bush and Gore were basically no different except that the folks who owned Bush were just a little scarier. I live in Washington, DC so I traded votes with a guy in Oregon who wanted to vote for Nader. Well, you know what happened and if you have seen nothing else in the last eight years you HAVE to see there is a huge difference between the Democrats and Republicans. Power corrupts and Democrats have been as guilty as anyone when it comes to passing legislation favorable to their donors and lobbyists and getting caught with their hands in the till. However, Democrats never wanted to destroy government because then they would have no reason to run for office.
In the last seven years the Bush administration has overseen the greatest transfer of public wealth into private coffers. The number of "sole source" contracts have grown exponentially at home and abroad. The tough guy party who always run on national security fears was on watch when we suffered the greatest attack on our home soil ever. Their response? Blow up Iraq even though they didn't have anything to do with 9/11. So we wreck their national infrastructure and instead of helping the folks we liberated from tyranny rebuild their society, we bring in Haliburton, KBR, Bechtel and a host of other crony corporations on no-bid or "sole source" contracts. Where do you think $10 billion a month is going? It wasn't war for oil; oil contracts were the icing on the cake. No, it was Grand Theft USA - the looting of the treasury along with massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Katrina drowns New Orleans and instead of helping residents reclaim their homes, FEMA gives out sole source contracts for toxic trailers.
Gore-Lieberman may not have been ground shaking but you can bet the treasury wouldn't be under such unbridled assault. And for sure we wouldn't have Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court and the court only one vote away from legalizing the Police State the Bush administration is foisting on the nation.
Hillary Clinton was the odds on favorite to win back in 2007 so the GOP fielded a bunch of empty suits like Rudy Giuliani as their serious contenders.
Like it or not, Clinton represented the status quo for the monied elites, why else would Clinton take her campaign to the bitter end making Obama burn millions of dollars on the campaign for months after the primary was all over except for the shouting? Obama threw a wrench into the works by having an impeccably organized campaign - and if you heard his acceptance speech you would see he is doing anything but cowering.
This is it. This is the year. There is a HUGE difference between the parties.
1723 days ago | Side: No
Saying the parties are in the pockets of big corporations is juvenile. Everybody has lobbyists, the National Education Association is the most powerful and they are a corporation, are they evil? They are wrong, but I don't know about evil.
Of course, there were huge differences between Bush and Gore. Gore believed that government could solve your problems and Bush didn't. It is the typical difference between Democrats and Republicans in general. I always hear all this blather about big evil, money hungry corporations from people who always vote for candidates that want to expand the powers of one of the biggest money corporations of all time, the government.
I have heard nothing nor have I read anything on this so called transfer of public wealth into private coffers theory. What is public wealth anyway? Isn't it just money taken forcibly from private citizens? What has happened in the last 7 years is private wealth creation, not transfer. The standard of living has gone up, while taxes and inflation have gone down.
Another thing, KBR is Haliburton and it was Clinton/Gore that signed the current contract they are operating under now. In fact sole source contracts were Gore's idea. It was all part of his re-inviting government scheme. Delphi had the contract before Halliburton. The idea is a pretty solid one however, Clinton needed a service company that had security clearance so he could launch his war in Kosovo. The government didn't have time to put out the contracts for bid, and really didn't have the time for companies that might have been able to pull off what Halliburton does, to get security clearance.
Bush/Cheney is only under such unbridled assault because the media doesn't like them, and conservatives don't run NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, The New York Times, etc.
Nobody in government ever said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Ever. Iraq was in violation of 17 UN resolutions. The UN gave the US the go ahead to invade Iraq, something they didn't do in Kosovo. Who cares about that? Bush bad, Clinton good.
You know, it you don't pay taxes, you don't a get a tax cut. Here is some more simple math, If I make a million dollars a year and you make one hundred thousand dollars and we both get a ten percent tax cut, my tax cut is bigger. However, I still pay more in taxes than you do. Are capital gains tax cuts considered tax cuts for the wealthy? My father would be interested to know that, seeing how capital gains tax cuts are good for his pension plan.
So yes there are huge differences between the parties. Democrats equate with socialism and have nominated a huge Fabian Socialist and Republicans equate with capitalists and have seemed to have lost their minds in the last couple of years.
1717 days ago | Side: yes
What a crock. What country at war time spends months bidding contracts in fields where there are only a couple firms capable of the work on the scale it is needed. We could always contract the work out to a foreign company whose nation doesn't assess the second highest corporate taxes in the world so that they can do the work cheaper. I am sure that would please you to no end.
As far as a police state . . . only ONE candidate in my lifetime has ever had the audacity to say we need a civilian security force and that is the Obamassiah.
Cowering? He is running scared. He has lost all momentum. The media has found a new favorite fresh face and are no longer treating him as the anointed one. He is having to think on his feet and the gaffes are coming hot and heavy as he stammers his way through unscripted responses. He looks, sounds and probably is exhausted.
Good of you to bring up Gore though. This is looking like the biggest choke job since Gore threw away the presidency when the Clintons handed it to him on a silver platter.
1710 days ago | Side: yes
LOL you conspiracy guys are all the same. Kennedy was NOT part of the rich elite? His daddy bought him the presidency by using riches and mafia connections both made bootlegging during Prohibition to control union votes. As for American corporations, they pay the second highest corporate taxes in the world plus the three plus percent tax imposed by Sarbanes Oxley. This sounds like an agenda imposed by large corporations? As for your not at all subtle anti semitic injection of AIPAC into a rant about business and corporations, they have the same thing over the Democratic party that the teachers unions and trial lawyers associations and George Soros and Michael Moorer and Moveon.org have over the party. They deliver PR, cash and votes in huge numbers. Nothing sinister or difficult to figure out in that.
1711 days ago | Side: No
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.
1725 days ago | Side: Politics
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.)
1725 days ago | Side: independence
A couple of notes, though I agree on your gist:
Georgia began the hostilities. Russia is defending the separatist areas from Georgian aggression.
And don't underestimate the US. If we want something done, we'll get it done, though not necessarily through diplomacy or military force. The 20th-21st Centuries have been pretty much written by our corporate and espionage activities, though you can't blame anyone for being unaware. I suggest you read Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance."
1725 days ago | Side: YES
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.
1715 days ago | Side: yes
Republicans and democrats agree on the majority of the issues. However, the debate is over issues that most people don't care about. Democrats and Republicans both protect large insurance companies that drive up the cost of health care. They enable lawyers to overly complicate small business to the point it isn't possible to operate legally unless you have millions of dollars. They both promote debt. They both support maximizing universities profits.
529 days ago | Side: yes
One must realize that when it comes down to it, it does not matter who is elected, or which party represents the congress, because it is all the same thing. Every single politician from about JFK forward is working in unison with big businesses such as goldman sachs. This government is all a scam that is created by the upper upper class. Every single politician is looking for one thing, money. This is why America is so messed up, the entire government is a scam.
315 days ago | Side: YES
I'll be as short and concise as possible with this. I won't throw statistics out there for people to speculate upon whether they are valid or not or put in my own political ideals that would in any way corrupt my view of this matter. I believe that the "two party system" is really just a one party system. To get an idea as to why I believe this, search for bills, orders and general actions of the presidents and congress since the 80s and see how eerily similar they are. Then, look at the provisions of the FEC (federal election committee) that inhibits third party candidates.
search for yourself.
180 days ago | Side: YES
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.
1699 days ago | Side: yes
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.
1585 days ago | Side: yes
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.
1399 days ago | Side: yes
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.
1196 days ago | Side: yes
I't is far easier to divide and conquer, than to take on an enemy in its entirety. Make no mistake about it, the governments biggest enemy are the citizens. They know that power is greater than money. They, "the democrats, and republicans" are the same thing. They create the smokescreen that they are against each other for the sole purpose of making you think there is a better side. I'f we would see them as the single force that they are, this would jeopardize there reign of power over us. Try to see around the smoke screen. See them as the single entity they are. You will then begin to know that the government is hiding a great deal of many things for the purpose of gripping more power.
671 days ago | Side: yes
I used to believe they were two separate parties, but the last 8-12 years, and the last two elections, have left me with only bitterness. The Republicans wouldn't have chosen a weak candidate twice in a row if they had been truly trying to win. While Romney was probably still a bit stronger than McCain, he was still not the best choice. Since I want to give them the 'benefit of the doubt', I believe now that those candidates were chosen with the intention of losing to Obama. Whether this is to further a socialist agenda or not, we'll see. But I don't like where it's going in either case.
162 days ago | Side: YES
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.
1725 days ago | Side: independence
They are both one in the same. Just take a look through history and see what they stood for. By the time you're done, you'll realize that they've exchanged their stance on the same issue multiple times.
For instance, wasn't it back in the 90's that the republicans were the party of fiscal discipline? They were all for controlling the budget and even instituted PayGo rules back in 1990.
But guess what? Today the democrats are the ones who are all for PayGo rules.
That's just one position. Look back further and you'll see even more flips just like that.
Both parties are one in the same. They have their own agenda for now, but next week their agenda may change (as they target different demographics for votes).
But in the end, they are both just corrupt political factions.
1723 days ago | Side: yes
Even the issue of warfare has been flip-flopped. In the 1990's during the Clinton presidency, the Democrats were all for sending our military here and there (Kosovo, Somalia, ect.) to enforce UN Resolutions and such, while the Republicans were firmly against that. Then comes Bush and Republican control, wherein you're ostracized from the party for questioning the wisdom of invading Iraq in order to enforce UN Resolutions (so the story goes), and now it's the Democrats who claim the title "Anti-War."
Everyone gets stuck on the topics like abortion or gay marriage and think those make huge differences, but then the Democrats & Republicans together have almost unanimous agreement in the areas of how to run foreign policy... disagreeing with the policy only when they aren't the party in power, but executing it all the same when they are empowered to do so.
Our country is on a disastrous course toward total bankruptcy, with over a trillion dollars of debt to China among other countries, and many trillions more of debt to entitlement programs we cannot fulfill (Social Security, Medicare, ect.). Our currency is inflating without end in sight, making prices all across the board go up. Have either party done so much as discuss this problem? Democrats may have the general tendency to "Tax and Spend", but then Republicans have shown they'll just "Borrow and Spend", and that borrowing will have to be made up for with taxes later instead of immediately. Where is the party that's against the wasteful spending?
It's the policies that aren't being debated that make it clear that the "Two" parties are essentially one. When the draft comes back, when a loaf of bread is $300.00, when gasoline is as hard to come by as Sasquatch-fur jackets, I highly doubt whether gays can get married or not will seem like an important issue anymore.
1723 days ago | Side: yes
I agree. And I'm pretty sure a two party system is inevitable. If you have three parties it's only a matter of time before the two weakest parties decide to merge in order to beat the strongest. Like you said, democracy is all about compromise.
It's true that both Democrats and Republicans are similar in that they are both centrist, but this is by definition what you would expect from Democracy -- majority rule. You pick the candidate a bit left of the center or the one a bit to the right.
1725 days ago | Side: NO
David you make the mistake of judging politicians on their stances not their actions. If you as you say "Look at their stances on the issues." you will certainly be misled. When you examine actual policy that is where all the colors run together and they make Green. Green is for money.
393 days ago | Side: YES
They only differ on a handful of social issues. It's part of the scam where they pretend they're in opposition. Where are your clear differences on war? WWI. Democrat. WWII. 2 Democrats. Korea. Both. Vietnam. Both. Iraq I. Republican. Iraq II. Both. You can go further into small conflicts like Panama, Libya, Lebanon, Zaire, etc and you'll get the same result. Now, weigh in the actions of Congress during any of these military conflicts and the answer is always BOTH. Both parties LOVE war. Both parties LOVE trillion dollar military budgets. Now I ask you, given the examples above, who hasn't been "thinking" about the issues?
Major social issues? Not the silly ones like gay-rights and abortion? Which party has taken on the AARP? Neither. Social Security? Neither. Medicare? Neither. They talk a mean game, until it's time for a vote, then they miraculously all agree. It's crazy that any buys into the filthy lies that come out their mouths at this point. The only conclusion possible is that the average person is just too dull to care or understand.
Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is about the dumbest proposition ever conceived. After a handful of "lesser evils", you're left with hell. If you're "close" to any of these politicians on the substantive issues, you're a traitor to the ideals that were the foundation for this society. The best thing you can do is vote a 3rd party, or abstain altogether. Voting is a right, not a mandate. Read your Constitution again. Read the notes and correspondence of those who wrote it. They'd take up arms tomorrow if they were resurrected and saw a $3.5 trillion dollar budget and a progressive income tax that isn't even enough to pay it.
339 days ago | Side: YES
Wow, a lot of completely incorrect information.
They only differ on a handful of social issues.
Social issues are what make society. Society is what makes a people, more or less. There are no issues more important than the social ones.
It's part of the scam where they pretend they're in opposition. Where are your clear differences on war? WWI. Democrat. WWII. 2 Democrats. Korea. Both. Vietnam. Both. Iraq I. Republican. Iraq II. Both.
I'd argue WWI and WWII were more than justifiable, and calling Iraq II on both parties is ridiculous. Obama, current president, and most democrats voted against it even amidst the slew of lies from the Bush Admin. Putting that fiasco on both parties is just intellectually dishonest and hints at either a pre-existing ideologue which would make you incapable of having an honest argument on this subject, or a lack of knowledge. If the second, now you know.
Not the silly ones like gay-rights and abortion?
Not silly at all. And two very clear differences on the subject.
Which party has taken on the AARP? Neither. Social Security? Neither. Medicare? Neither.
Why should those things be taken on? They are great programs which have vastly improved the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people for very little cost when compared to the benefits.
They talk a mean game, until it's time for a vote, then they miraculously all agree. It's crazy that any buys into the filthy lies that come out their mouths at this point. The only conclusion possible is that the average person is just too dull to care or understand.
A lot of anger here. Do you have specifics you are raging mad about? Or just listen to a lot of right wing media? Any person, who was not "dull" and looked honestly at the programs you listed would come to the conclusion that, while improvements can be made, they are good programs. I have no idea what your point is here or where the anger comes from. All programs have problems. It does not make them bad in general.
Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is about the dumbest proposition ever conceived. After a handful of "lesser evils", you're left with hell.
Cute. Read that on a cereal box or something? Actually I don't vote for the lesser of two evils. Every time Democrats have been in power during my lifetime everything from the economy to the quality of life index and education standards has vastly improved. Then republicans come along to fuck it up whether its that disaster Bush Jr. or the crazy filibustering tea party. I've been voting for smart government, not the "lesser of two evils."
If you're "close" to any of these politicians on the substantive issues, you're a traitor to the ideals that were the foundation for this society
I find those who scream bloody traitor and cite "founders" generically, are most often completely clueless about the "founders" and what being a traitor would entail in general. Do you have some specific thing you can show is "traitorous" -- or are you again lost in a vague rage born of ignorance?
Voting is a right, not a mandate. Read your Constitution again.
You've never read the constitution it is safe to say at this point. And I don't remember a single person ever on this site or even in my life claiming that voting was mandatory and not a right.
Read the notes and correspondence of those who wrote it.
You've not read any of these. Oh, maybe edited snippets form all those anti-government sites, but not the real thing. If you had any true interest in this period of time, you could not possibly be this upset with the present, at least not in the direction you seem to be upset about.
They'd take up arms tomorrow if they were resurrected and saw a $3.5 trillion dollar budget and a progressive income tax that isn't even enough to pay it.
As a percent of GDP the U.S. has one of the lowest, or the lowest debt of any nation. We're actually doing awesome in that area. You've fallen for the strawman, odd for one claiming it is everyone else who does not know what is going on.
The only issue effecting economy right now is jobs. One of the most effective ways to create jobs is through government spending, and it happens to be the only effective way of creating jobs during a major recession.
So, being the smart people they were (the founders), once they studied up on modern society I'm confident the majority of the founders would support increased government spending in order to create more jobs. Things like fixing roads, super fast trains, more teachers and better qualified teachers, things of that nature. All easily paid for with a return to the 90's tax rates, you remember, when a Democratic president created the most successful U.S. economy in history?
Really the only "treasonous" things going on in general right now are the state by state voters rights acts in places like Florida. Again though, it is the Republicans you should be all raging mad at in this area and in every case where it is happening.
338 days ago | Side: NO
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).
1724 days ago | Side: Politics
Joe Lieberman is a Republican and Democrat, just like the rest of them. That's why you are finding it hard to classify him, because you're premise is that they are different. If you begin with the premise that they're the same, he's easily classified as a typical Demublican.
Congress controls the money in Washington, not Presidents. Every Federal dollar is ran through 2 committees. The Executive isn't on either. Like most Presidents, Bill Clinton got the credit for what his Congress did... his Republican Congress... or if you did a little deeper and stay on topic... his Demublican Congress. Again, they're all the same.
We keep hearing about taxes on the wealthy and other nonsense. They already pay the lion's share. How much do you want them to pay? 75%? 80? 95? Are you a capitalist or a socialist? Do you know how taxes originally worked in the Constitution? They added up government expenditure, then divided by the Census. EVERYONE paid the exact same amount. You know why that worked for so long? Because it makes sure EVERYONE has chips in the game. When you haven't ante'd up, you don't care how big government has gotten. Why should you? Someone else is paying for it.
339 days ago | Side: YES
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.
1725 days ago | Side: NO
Some good points, but I have issues with two of them...
"1. economic views are very different. democrats believe more in redistributing wealth while republicans are against that."
My Take: Republicans and Democrats both redistribute wealth. All a tax incentive or cut does is redistribute wealth from the government to a group that's being targeted.
"4. republicans tend to want to deport illegal immigrants, democrats are usually for open borders."
My Take: Wasn't it Bush himself that wanted to keep illegals here? I thought so...
1723 days ago | Side: yes
1. redistribution of wealth in this case means mainly taking from the rich and giving to the poor. this is something that republicans are generally against.
4. Moderate views are moderate. i said tend, but Bush is not for open borders. he just feels that it is impossible to deport every illegal alien in the country. Democrats who tend to want open borders sometimes don't. but like i said, it's called being moderate.
1723 days ago | Side: No
No way, they are not the same by far. They may tend to know know on which side their bread is buttered and many go for the big kickbacks from corporate America on both sides of the aisle but the similarity ends about there.
1. Republicans still tend to oppose abortion and some democrats go so far as to support partial-birth abortion.
2. Republicans are still usually pro-military and don't believe in appeasing the "axis of evil", Democrats think we can reason and sit down to talk with terrorists.
3. Republicans believe in tax relief and limited government and Democrats usually favor tax and spend policies. They apparently know how to spend our money better than we do.
AND ON AND ON...
No way they're still light years away different!
1725 days ago | Side: Politics
"some democrats go so far as to support partial-birth abortion."
More and more Democrats are moving away from this position.
"Democrats think we can reason and sit down to talk with terrorists."
God this line never fails to piss me off. Democrats want bin Laden dead just as much as anybody.
"Democrats usually favor tax and spend policies"
This is bullshit. Democrats and Republicans tax about the same amount and spend about the same amount. The difference on taxes is that Democrats favor taxing the wealthy more heavily while Republicans favor more equal tax rates. The difference on spending is that Republicans spend more on the military while Democrats spend more on social programs.
1725 days ago | Side: YES
They are two different parties with ideaologies that lead the American people to the same outcome. They use different methods and answer to different lobbyist to some degree in order to determine which political channel to follow; yet when followed the general outcome for the American public is the same.
Politics is complicated if we are uninvolved and do not research the issues. First, we have a problem with politics on the local level. Townships select leaders who use their position to make money under the table or to receive other benefits while in office. Far too often the Mayors of small townships break tie votes to serve some personal agenda of a friend. Whether or not the town needs more modern squad cars is decided not by actual need, but by "if I get more cars for you will you be sure to assist me to be re-elected. The honest Mayor will consider himself a servant and will work to serve the citizens of that township and prioritize his spending according to the legitimate needs of that town. When a small town spends more money than is taken in it is likely that selt interest is being served in contradistinction to the town's needs.
When small townships end up in debt they extend a hand to the federal government for help. Today, not only are small townships in debt to the Feds, but large Cities are as well. This irresponsible spending ultimately results in towns and Cities relinquishing control to the Federal Government. Bail me out and I will owe you for life. Now, we see cities across the nation looking for assistance simply because they have wasted their own resources.
Why are we loosing our power and productivity as a Nation? We are loosing it because we reward irresponsibility. If my child gets pregnant out of wedlock I want you and your family to pay for it by adding to your taxes. By all means allow me to share the burden of my mistake. And if I as mayor of a town use the city 's money to my own personal profit by all means raise taxes on the every day citizen. If a man refuses to work because he can't find a job that meets the wages of his previous job by all means extend his benefits. I remember seeing the same old faces at the welfare line from the days of my youth--thirty years later they have made no effort to imporve their life or their life-style. And there I was couldn't use my right arm to write my name. Soon afterward I was going to work early in the morning, getting off and going to my next job-- oh and then afterward one more job. That's right, and those jobs I was working could have been held by the majority of those on the welfare line. May were getting their gov checks, having children by 5 husbands, living with one of the five, and the other four could not be found except on the welfare line come time for benefits. It's easy, we simply add taxes to that family that is holding 3 to 4 jobs.
Our present system is unsustainable--period---period. It is a system that rewards irresponsibility. It is a self-destructive system.
Having said that I must say that I do believe in a welfare system that will help those who are victims of unforeseen disaster. But those who will not work, who will not take a lesser job than the 150,000 they were getting paid--let them live without. I have worked for as little as $75.00 a week and only 2 days off a month. My wife worked with me and made the same wage. My children were fed and clothed, and we received as little help as possible--very little. We worked hard and through time things changed. Interesting how this president bails out the wealthy; yet talks as though he is concerned about the poor.
The Republicans continue to defend Bush who seemed to be in love with many of the Middle Eastern Oil Lords. No man should be President who has this conflict of interest in this type of business. His foreign policies continue under Obama. Interesting how Obama used Iraq to campaign with promises of bringiong our soldiers home and ending the war. Oh, he kept his word only to continue the same type of strategy in Afghanistan. Hey guys Bush is still in office with a different smile, a different skin; but the same strategy and agenda that continues to rape this country of it's resources fighting a war that cannot be won. He endeavors to uphold the American Tradition of camping out on the enemies lawn endeavoring to train him in the American Way. Folks, they don't want the American way. Why do we continue to spend money and lose lives on a war that cannot be won? Our new administration is death to all Americans. This is the Bushoma Presidency carring out the same policies. But he is trusted by the majority of people who share his color simply because of this color. In spite of the fact that this President has spent more than the last eight presidents combined people still blindly trust him.
Go to Fox News and they will defend President George Bush even when it is proven that it was his policies that initially led us into this mess. Are white people any smarter. I can't see that they are. We need to come together with a party called Zebra. Over and out.
973 days ago | Side: Politics
there exists very little difference between democrats and republicans. both of them seem to want low taxes. during the bush era, it appeared that taxes were at 35%, and with obama, it is the same. you can contest this with me if you want. obama is supposedly, the most liberal senator, according to the "liberal" media, so i would hate to see the most conservative. in fact, if im not mistaken, obama wanted to lower taxes also. it also seems that both democrats, and republicans are religious. no difference there. i have yet to see anyone come out in large numbers saying they are atheists. the fact that this thought would never even cross their minds shows the little variation there is in american politics. on war, it appears that both democrats and republicans enjoy invading innocent countries. obama may have even more troops out there blowing people up than bush. if you look at such things at civil liberties, i also do not see a difference between their stances on the patriot act. democrats love spying on people, and so do republicans. they love to fear monger, and every time you enter an air port, you can see there is no difference whether it is obama who is leading or bush. i believe they are also both pushing for mandatory id cards. they are both supported by corporations. they both support capitalism. as jesse ventura put it, american politics is like wrestling. the 2 sides pretend to be fighting against each other, and hate each other, but in reality they are friends and have similiar interests, to promote corporate agendas. some people say that republicans are against immigration while democrats are for it. however, i dont exactly see immigration laws changing under the democrats. i also dont see any amnesty happening under obama. again, like i said, they pretend like they are fighting for something but what matters most is the end result. you might say that republicans are for military while democrats are against, but again, what we have here is a $700 billion military budget, an 700+ military bases around the world. if there truly were a difference, you would see the military budget slashed to $350 billion, and military bases to 350 worldwide. theres no reason why china who has 4 times the population but 1/10 of the millitary spending. to use another example, we'll look at americas support for israel. it does not matter whether it is republican or democrat. they will support israel. you do not need to guess. the result is pre determined. the whole idea of an american democracy is a hoax. it is like presenting you with mcdonalds and burger king as 2 choices. to the average idiot, this appears to be a real choice. one serves whoppers, while the other serves quarter pounders. heck, even their play ground is different, and burger king does not have grimace. they give out different toys. one is called the happy meal while the other is called a kids meal. oh and guess what, burger king gives free refills. how dare you say burger king is the same as mcdonalds. of course there is a difference, but if you know any better than you will know that mcdonalds and burger king is basically the same thing.
898 days ago | Side: No