What is the real difference between Democrats and Republicans?
To start with what are Democrates and what is a Republucan? Everybody says Republicans are people are more conservative and are only interested in helping themselves, and with Democrates they say they are people who think more about the country's benefits more than there own. I rarley hear different stories and when I do its the people protecting there personal titles.I want to hear your thoughts on what they truley are. This a topic very much avoided in school because of the fear of the teachers own personal opinion getting out, which is a big no no in todays society.
|
Democrats are collectivists, Republicans are individualists. Democrats are Rousseauists, Republicans are Lockeans. Democrats are contextualists, Republicans are originalists. I could go on. The only real similarity is that they're all corporatist jerks interested in power over principle. 4
points
Democrats are not more generous than republicans. In fact, they give less money nationwide (America) than republicans do. Their entire political campaign is for power not for the best interest of the country. This is why they take other people's money to give to the poor when they themselves could be giving to the poor. 3
points
On a National Level: Democrats want to spend a bit more on social services and increase taxes on the rich and middle class. Republicans want to cut a bit on social services and cut taxes on the rich and middle class. State level: Extremely various. Fiscally responsible Republicans do well for their state's economics (Chris Christie, Rick Scott, Gary Johnson, etc.) while Socially liberal Democrats do well for their state's civil liberties... mostly just gay rights... but I guess that counts. Democrats are still pretty bad, though. Gay rights isn't enough to make up for removing gun rights and harming small business. Republicans suck, but not enough Democrats have supported gay rights to make it seem like the Republicans are truly the ONLY villains in this situation. Libertarians are just better at this shit at this point. It's like the scientists and artists during the Renaissance. So much resistance from the status-quo leaders, but eventually our logic and evidence will beat their bibles and collectivism. So in general, Democrats are not that much different from Republicans on a National Level. Evidence? Just look at Obama's actions versus Bush's actions. Obama started two new wars, deported more illegal immigrants, shut down more legal medical marijuana dispensaries, and even expanded Executive ability to torture Americans without even due process. 1
point
3
points
Republican Trickle down economics (named Voodoo Economics by George Bush Sr.) Against abortion For Capital Punishment Big military spenders For deregulation Leans more toward the rich and corporations Democrat Believes the economy will grow if the working man has money to spend For abortion Against Capital Punishment For smaller and more effective military For regulations Leans more toward helping the poor and middle class These are party generalities. 3
points
Here is a little test that will help you decide. The answer can be found by posing the following question: You are walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly a Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges at your family... You are carrying a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your Family. What do you do? Democrat's Answer: ⢠Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! ⢠What is a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP? ⢠Does the man look poor or oppressed? ⢠Is he really a terrorist? Am I guilty of profiling? ⢠Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? ⢠Could we run away? ⢠What does my wife think? ⢠What about the kids? ⢠Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? ⢠What does the law say about this situation? ⢠Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it? ⢠Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? ⢠Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? ⢠Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? ⢠If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? ⢠Should I call 9-1-1? ⢠Why is this street so deserted? ⢠We need to raise taxes, have paint & weed day. ⢠Can we make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. ⢠I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus. ⢠This is all so confusing! Republican's Answer: BANG! Redneck's Answer: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click..... (Sounds of reloading) BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click Daughter: 'Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?!' Son: 'Can I shoot the next one?!' Wife: 'You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist! ' 1
point
1
point
You notice how it has to be a [u]terrorist[/u] with the knife? i do have a couple questions, so please be patient with us whom may be less worldly in thought and action as this particular author and his readers. How would one know it is a "terrorist" charging at you? I guess there's a long beard and hijab involved here (hehe). Does it make a difference? Of course it does to the Republican and the Southerner. This is the most interesting point of this piece. What if the alleged perpetrator was another good 'ol boy? Do you think the redneck (Southerner) might fire a couple warning shots first to indicate he had a loaded gun? If he was indeed a Muslim "terrorist", this would indicate that he was a foreigner. What the fuck would he be doing in the south? How would one know he was screaming obscenities since he would probably be speaking a foreign language? Perhaps it was a lotto ticket he had raised in his hand and he had just won $19 million, and was reacting in excitement and jubilation? Perhaps he was charging at the redneck family to hug them and to express how he could finally afford to be bring his entire extended family from Pakistan to Ala-frickin'-bama to be their new neighbors and build a brand new Mosque next to the post office. What if it was Willie Nelson charging at them? What if it was Wayne LaPierre, the NRA CEO with the knife? Would the Southerner get down on his knees an offer to suck his wang while boss Wayne shredded his entire family 1
point
So you see, Republicans live in a constant fog of fantastically unlikely circumstances ever on the verge of happening. It's a life of fear and and imagination... like a long nightmare. They kind of know they won't be walking in a desert and that no person is going to jump them in that desert with a knife, yet they live their life in that way and spend much of their limited brain power running these scenarios through their head over and over again. A liberal is just as capable of defending themselves in that or any situation in fact, it's all just bluster and insecurity. Actually liberals (along with all the stuff Apollo listed) are also healthier in general and better able to defend themselves in general. Whether that is the reason we don't spend our time living like some terrible thing this instant is about to happen, or if our general superiority leads us to the conclusion that some terrible thing is not this instant about to happen, is really the only mystery here. 2
points
So..., you see...., liberals are constantly deluding themselves and taking life too seriously to recognize a joke when they read one. It's a life of rose colored glasses and and imagination... like a long stay in Mr. Rogers' neighborhood. They kind of know that life is not always a walk in the park and that there are not unicorns they can ride, yet they live their life in that way and spend much of their limited brain power running these scenarios through their head over and over again. Actually, conservatives are also healthier in general and better able to laugh at themselves in general. Liberalism is a disease. Liberalism is a mental disorder. But they're working on a cure ;) Democrats are much more easily defined and predictable than republicans these days. It's big gov. pro abortion you can't do it, let us do it discouragement campaigning hoopla. But there are all sorts of republicans out there. Republicans like to act really conservative when running for office and then not act conservative while in office. This makes things confusing because some actually are conservative and get ignored by the media. (Ron Paul) I've never really felt comfortable calling myself "republican" I usually say conservative ish/ almost libertarian. No matter what side you are on it would be childish to say that there aren't serious issues on both sides.. A political scientist was being interviewed and brought up an interesting point, that even if one does not see within the individual issues themselves that the nation has become more politically divided by the vehemence of support in exact opposite directions of various "hot button" issues, you can look at it from a strictly analytical perspective and instead of looking at the issue count positions on the issue. He points out that it is almost as if one side or the other picks a position on any given issue, then the other side says "I'm going to believe the exact opposite." It's an interesting point. Not 100% accurate probably because the majority on either side in most instances do not agree with any extreme on any given issue. It may be more the case that each side paints the other side as having that extreme position whether they do or not. Regardless, the idea that "both sides are the same" is utter bullshit and even a child looking at any single issue would be able to see that is not the case. One could argue that, while each side preaches different positions, the end result is the same. This I think could also be easily disproved by looking at which policies are put in place when one or the other is in power, and the state of the people socially and economically subsequent of that. So with that in mind here are some generalization on specific issues most find important: Taxes Liberals - Taxes should be raised on the top 1% of earners because this will help pay down some of the deficit and save federal and state jobs which otherwise may be cut. Taxing this group higher would not cost jobs nor hurt the economy. Those tax cuts took effect over a decade ago and did nothing to create jobs in all that time because if that tax cut had been able to create jobs we would not have had such a deep recession. This is also seen as a matter of fairness. Liberals believe the extremely rich get away, in general, with paying a lower tax rate because they can afford to exploit tax loopholes. This is not a matter of them paying more in terms of percents than the middle class, but a matter of making the playing field a bit more even. Conservatives - Generally don't trust or don't believe that a raise in taxes would only be for that 1%. Also generally believe taxes have been raised recently. Either way, they generally don't believe government is able to create jobs and so raising taxes on this group would only be wasted on bureaucracy. Conservatives generally hold the belief that job creators are held back by high tax rates and that freeing them of much, and in some cases all, of these taxes, they would be able to hire more workers, would stop shipping jobs overseas, and would be able to innovate more creating more jobs still. How each side paints the other on this issue - Liberals say conservatives are only interested in lowering taxes for their big donors and that they either are ignorant of history or the facts of what this particular tax increase entails, or are mistaken in their belief that government is incapable of using that money wisely. Conservatives say liberals are looking for handouts and pandering to a demographic which votes for the party based on handouts. They often say liberals are participating in class warfare in that they believe that this is an unfair burden on the rich. It should not be overlooked that many conservatives are truly under the belief that their taxes overall are higher today. This is a non-partisan issue and factually incorrect. It's just numbers and the numbers are clear. Still, it is important to understand that mindset (in many) to understand "anger" expressed by a very large portion of this group. Healthcare Conservatives - Conservatives believe that the market is a more efficient way to provide healthcare. They generally and for the most part believe altruistically that allowing government more control over healthcare will lead to higher prices and even healthcare rationing. It is believed that this will lead to higher prices and worse service. Liberals - Liberals believe that success in other countries shows that a universal healthcare system is more efficient. They believe in large numbers that The Affordable Care Act did not go far enough, and that insurance should be cut out completely and it should be a one-payer system. They believe that this will allow more money to be spent on care as opposed to privatized profits. They believe that a for-profit system of healthcare inherently would lead to an attempt by insurance to provide less healthcare and charge more money for it, and by taking the profit out of healthcare more people will get better care for less money. This issue has also developed some counter intuitive ideas in terms of where each side generally stands on other issues. Paradoxically liberals generally believe everyone should have to pay something for healthcare except at the very lowest rungs of the income bracket. Conservatives have taken the position that paying for healthcare is a matter of personal liberty, and that no one should be forced to pay regardless of income or means. The reason this is counter intuitive is because as our current system stands anyone has a right to go to the emergency room if ill, and be treated even if they cannot pay, and neither side, except at the furthest fringes, has proposed this should not continue to be the case. Basically for those who pay nothing, this healthcare should be "a hand out," and more people should get a "hand out" under a conservative ideal plan. To be fair, on the fringe of the side which is for denying healthcare to those who cannot afford it, this belief generally comes with an asterisk, that being that if government were not involved in healthcare at all, everyone would be able to afford it, and so would be a non-issue. This ignores that government is was not involved in healthcare for several decades or that indeed government has been involved. This is somewhat true in that healthcare falls under monopoly laws that apply to all business in this country. The idea is legislation has in some instances allowed for quasi-monopolies, where large chunks of the union are divided among a handful of healthcare providers. The opposite side would argue that, while many of the laws have not been perfect, without them, instead of large chunks being divided among a handful of providers, all of it would be under the control of only 1 or 2 providers; that the laws should be fixed in that regard, not scrapped entirely. Abortion Liberals - Simply that before the third trimester the fetus has no sentience and so is only an extension of the woman's body, and so she has a right to do with her body as she feels is right, and that it is not the place of government, or anyone else for that matter, to dictate that woman's action. Most liberals are against abortion after this time in general, but accept that exceptions in the cases of rape and health issues should be made. Conservatives - Conservatives are split on this issue, however in the current politically charged environment have adopted for the most part the position that the fetus is a separate being from conception (or very shortly after, far before the current scientific-based estimate of the third trimester) and that rights of individuals extend beyond the woman and the fetus has a right to life just as a born child would. Religion plays a strong role in ideas surrounding abortion as well. This has lead to large portions (though not enough to make a difference electorally) of liberals against abortion, and conservatives who are indifferent. Military This has long been a wedge issue where liberals were generally for cuts and less interference abroad, while conservatives were for more spending here and more presence abroad. Sides have come to a general agreement in polling that military spending should be leveled off if not significantly cut. In the spirit of partisanship there has been talk on the right of increased military spending by the Republican ticket, however that position seems not to reflect the majority of the party at this point. Whether this is an issue where the ticket disagrees with the majority of the party, or whether it's a position the ticket has not yet come to a conclusion on remains to be seen. Also counter to the general party idea, most liberals have accepted, if not supported, an increased presence in Afghanistan, for a time at least. Now this side of the political spectrum seems to be moving toward a push to get out sooner rather than later. Environment Liberals - Liberals generally support and believe findings by the science community that global warming is partially caused by man, and that people are increasing global warming to a significant enough degree that switching to cleaner energies should be a high priority. For a small portion of this side it is believed that this is the most pressing issue of our generation. In addition liberals believe that a switch to cleaner energies, specifically solar, electric for cars, wind, and other sources would help our economy because they are services which cannot be "outsourced" ie, could not be provided by global corporations which currently provide most of the world's energy through OPEC. Conservatives - Are somewhat skeptical of scientific findings and generally believe that if global warming is indeed a real thing, man is either only minimally responsible for it or not responsible for it at all. Overshadowing this is economical concerns. It is believed in large part that clean energies are either not possible to utilize to a great enough degree to satisfy our need for energy, or at least are not advanced enough at this point and should not be pursued to a great degree until the technology is better. Conservatives also believe that drilling more means more jobs and that liberals decrease drilling and have killed U.S. jobs in the process. This is an area where facts do not quite align with perception. Factually, drilling has increased under this current democratic administration. This has not been advertised perhaps because it is not believed liberals would support the idea should it become widely known, and that it makes for a useful wedge issues for republican strategists, and so they do not wish for it to become a central issue. Like a mutual standoff. Both gunslingers don't want the audience to know they have no bullets. To be fair it is factual that in the case of electric cars, producing the batteries causes nearly the pollution as driving a gasoline engine would cause over time. On the other side, to be fair, drilling only produces minimal American jobs and only in specific areas. Profits don't go to America but to global corporations, most of which don't pay American taxes. Further, oil demand is driven more by market perception than by actual oil availability. Oil drilled today would not be used for a couple of decades and would have little to no affect on current gasoline prices at the pump. In defense of the first point, liberals who know this generally believe that in order for electric technology to progress pursuing it even with a current net 0 gain as far as environment is worth it in the long run. In defense of the second, I believe it would be argued that since perception of the market drives prices in large part, more drilling would create a perception there is more oil, and so drive down prices. This I think could also be easily disproved by looking at which policies are put in place when one or the other is in power, and the state of the people socially and economically subsequent of that. True dat. Bush bombed only four countries. Obama bombed 6. Bush shut down less medical marijuana dispensaries in two terms than Obama did in one. Bush deported less illegal immigrants in two terms than Obama did in one. Bush passed the Patriot Act, taking away our fourth Amendment rights. Obama passed the NDAA, granting him the ability to detain any American WITHOUT warrant, to imprison him WITHOUT due process, and to send him to Guantanamo to be interrogated. So taking away 5th Amendment rights, right against cruel and unusual punishment, and right to Habeas Corpus. Bush created tax cuts for the rich, Obama extended them... which I guess is different. Bush bailed out banks and auto industries... Obama did too? But with different amounts of money. Okay, so that's different. As for everything else, well, far too much. But on a National level, most of those issues are hardly touched. At least within the last 12 years. Hell, Obamacare is from a Conservative think tank... lol. Both have only increased military spending. Both are environmentalists... sort of. Mostly just for corporate interests. But voting in Romney will pretty much do nothing but slow down the debt curve. Social services will hardly be touched, just a tiny bit to fit with the Paul Ryan plan (if they even have the balls to go "that extreme".) 1
point
1
point
Democrats are better at creating jobs. They are better at economic growth. They are better for the debt. They are better for the deficit. They are better for annualized federal spending growth (lower). They aren't self-righteous theocrats. They have much more sane domestic policy. They have much more sane, less costly (in lives and dollars) foreign policy. Democrats are almost better in every way. Liberals on average are also more intelligent than conservatives (by IQ), make $7,000 more than the average conservative, contribute more to the economy, and pay more in taxes than conservatives. So as a party and as people, they are superior. - On another note, democrats don't tend to deny hundreds of years of scientific fact and basic mathematic principles. But then again, Republicans were never people to let the facts get in the way of their beliefs. Well it wasn't me that did it but perhaps it was due to lack of sources Show me one comment on this thread that has sources. Show me one god damn comment. And I have posted the sources for all of these before. And that is not grounds for three down-votes. uncontrolled partisan bias. Everything I said was a fact. And a plethora of the comments above have solely opinion bias. Mine is just a collection of facts, reality. The fact that Republicans are too ignorant to see reality doesn't make it biased. It just sounds like a kid sort of thing to act like one party is golden and the other one sucks. No...just that one is MUCH better than the other in almost every way. 1
point
|
