NationStates Jolt Archive

From my understanding, and feel free to correct me if I make a glaring error, for the last several decades a prime tenet of the repubican manifesto is smaller government, less interference in the economy, and a hands off approach. My father, a die hard elephant man, would always spout off to me the need to excise social programs that weren't absolutley required. Behind the 'small government' ideal a firm stance on christian values has always dominated the republican party.

In the last ten years, things seem to have changed. The republican party no longer can mantain it's self declared moratorium on virtues. There is a little dirt on both sides of the campaign but none of it in the commandment breaking area. Not a single person can claim that the Bush Administration stands on at the front of a 'smaller government platform'. Indeed, the government is at it's largest thanks to the department of homeland security, a safe house for special interests and a means to break several key unions that have undue influence on the economy (I.E. The union of airline employees.)

Yet no republicans that I know see this as a problem. It's confusing. What does the republican party stand for today? What is the goal of the republican party? Don't say, "Fighting Terrorism" because that is a stupid and lazy answer. Everyone's goal is to protect our people from terrorism.

What does the Republican party stand for? Concise and well thought out answers, please.

Okay, look at an American coin. Now ignore all the stuff written on it. What you're left with is all Republicans care about. Money. Oh, and bashing gays too,

Basically, the republicans are the worst sort of political party: economically liberal, socially conservative.

I don't agree with the democrats, but at least they mean well. Republicans are pretty much worthless on all levels.

I know that there are republicans here. What does your politcal party stand for? Have you lost all sight of ANY ideals? Are you competing out of habit and reflex?

Or is it really all about money?

I know that there are republicans here. What does your politcal party stand for? Have you lost all sight of ANY ideals? Are you competing out of habit and reflex?

Or is it really all about money?
Most that I know actually don't like where their party is going but they think that they can't win as a third party so they just follow the crowd.

Most that I know actually don't like where their party is going but they think that they can't win as a third party so they just follow the crowd.

The roots of entropy show themselves. I pray for economic collapse. Americans need another depression to shake off this malaise and impotence we've found ourselves assaulted by.

Both the democrats and republicans care about preserving the status quo. They just do it in differing ways. The democrats are willing to grant some concessions to make the people think they have it good and the republicans aren't.

Both the democrats and republicans care about preserving the status quo. They just do it in differing ways. The democrats are willing to grant some concessions to make the people think they have it good and the republicans aren't.
I'd rather take the good than the not one whose stingy. Jk lol

Well, liberals tend to think based more on emotion, (i.e. "Oh they're poor, let's give them money.") Conservatives tend to think based more on common sense (i.e. "Oh, they're poor, let's find them a job so that they can contribute something to society.")

Well, liberals tend to think based more on emotion, (i.e. "Oh they're poor, let's give them money.") Conservatives tend to think based more on common sense (i.e. "Oh, they're poor, let's find them a job so that they can contribute something to society.")

That's the traditional view point. Conservatives use common sense. But that isn't true anymore, not by a long shot. Look at the state of the government, the obvious corruption and cronyism, the fact that Ann Coulter hasn't had both her knee caps broken and her pinky toes shoved up her nostrils. As for liberals thinging with their emotions, that's an unfair stereotype for people who mean well. When you say it that way you make generosity and goodwill sound like bad things.

Well, liberals tend to think based more on emotion, (i.e. "Oh they're poor, let's give them money.") Conservatives tend to think based more on common sense (i.e. "Oh, they're poor, let's find them a job so that they can contribute something to society.")


Agreed. Unfortunately, neither party has been particularly effective at shrinking government (Reagan tried the hardest).

Republicans "tend" to prefer the private sector be left to it's own devices in order to promote growth and jobs. Democrats "tend" to assume that most companies are evil and self-serving and have to be "regulated" for the good of everyone. I say "tend" because the lines are blurring. Joe Lieberman is a very fiscally conservative Democrat. John McCain is a more liberal minded Republican.

It's been said that we've lost a lot of the great moderates in our government, and I for one would like to see them return.

the republican party of today is in support of a few things

if you are very rich, they take care of you. being a republican makes sense.

if the 2nd ammendment is the most important thing to you. you should be a republican

if you think that might makes right, and if we just kill enough people, things will go our way. you should be a republican

if you like empty moral talk from your politicians you should be a republican

if you are in favor of a balanced budget, nope
if you are in favor of limiting abortion rights, nope
if you are in favor of prayer in school, nope
if you are in favor of people who ARE moral, nope

these are just things they talk about, if you notice they dont DO them. so it makes no sense for a conservative christian to be republican just because they TALK the talk. they don't deliver.

not that im saying the democrats are better at any of those 'nope' things. they won't do them either. but given that neither party will actually DO the things important to social conservatives, whats the point of including that in your voting strategy? you like being tricked into voting for a party that claims to support your issues but never acts on them? you may as well just vote your pocketbook.

Conservatives tend to think based more on common sense (i.e. "Oh, they're poor, let's find them a job so that they can contribute something to society.")

Uhm… actually… Old School/New Dealer liberals were, ‘Let’s give them a job!’ mind set. In the 1930s-1940s Democrats/Liberals believed the government should enable those who want to work, to work, by giving them jobs the government would pay for. The Republicans at the time had a cow, saying the government had no power or right to do that, since that’s what socialists and communists did.

The republican party no longer can mantain it's self declared moratorium on virtues.
The people's views towards George Bush are a reflection of their importance over virtues. George Bush stands strong on certain issues and refuses to deviate from them. This somewhat defines a strong sense of loyalty present in the Christian religion. (IMO, unwavering loyalty isn't always the best, however. Remaining loyal to a commander that decided to bomb an entire city out of spite, an extreme example, is not good while remaining loyal to income ranges, a more liberal view of Republican values, while neglecting the needs of the rest of the country may not be good either.)

Not a single person can claim that the Bush Administration stands on at the front of a 'smaller government platform'.
On the contrary, Bush has called for lower taxes on multiple occasions. With a lower revenue, the government is unable to handle all of the needs of the country and instead needs to rest the burden on the state/city/county, etc.. Lower taxes also leaves the economic state of the country in the hands of the people. Leaving the decision to the people on how to spend their money is a hands off approach. IMO, I don't believe that people would willingly cut their own paychecks to fund programs to help the poor and/or disabled, ie: welfare and medicare. A hands off approach especially helps the rich. The rich become richer, because they don't have to pay for the people under them and because the Government's lack of business regulation allows them to circumvent many social issues that interfere with profits. -Extreme cases but certainly plausible.

the government is at it's largest thanks to the department of homeland security
The power of the government is its ability to reinforce specific policies and control on the nation. While the increase in power to homeland security increases the scope of the military, unless the U.S. becomes a martial State, their power will remain limited to helping specific interest groups with information (specific interest groups ranging from the airline company to a supreme court jury/judge).

Also, let's not forget the Republican views towards gay marriages. The institution of marriage was originally, a Christian one and it is the Christian aspect of the Republican party that opposes gay marriages. IMO, because marriage has become so intertwined with the economic status of a couple, the separation of Church and State should apply to gay marriages. Marriage is no longer simply a religous pairing, but instead a major change in your economic status with regards to the government.

The War on Terror in Iraq, a highly debated issue, also very slightly represents Christian ideals rather than our Nation's security. The ideas in my head aren't fully formulated yet, but who can't see the similarity's between the United State's ideal of spreading Democracy across the world and the original colonist's ideal of spreading Christianity across the United States through Native Americans?
-Feel free to tear me a new one on this position.

Btw, if you can guess what major party I'm rooting for, you get a cookie.
Hint: it's not Republican

From my understanding, and feel free to correct me if I make a glaring error, for the last several decades a prime tenet of the repubican manifesto is smaller government, less interference in the economy, and a hands off approach. My father, a die hard elephant man, would always spout off to me the need to excise social programs that weren't absolutley required. Behind the 'small government' ideal a firm stance on christian values has always dominated the republican party.

In the last ten years, things seem to have changed. The republican party no longer can mantain it's self declared moratorium on virtues. There is a little dirt on both sides of the campaign but none of it in the commandment breaking area. Not a single person can claim that the Bush Administration stands on at the front of a 'smaller government platform'. Indeed, the government is at it's largest thanks to the department of homeland security, a safe house for special interests and a means to break several key unions that have undue influence on the economy (I.E. The union of airline employees.)

Yet no republicans that I know see this as a problem. It's confusing. What does the republican party stand for today? What is the goal of the republican party? Don't say, "Fighting Terrorism" because that is a stupid and lazy answer. Everyone's goal is to protect our people from terrorism.

What does the Republican party stand for? Concise and well thought out answers, please.
The Republican Party stands for many things, including decreasing the crime rate, making jobs, fighting terrorism (Yes, I had to include it, despite its obviousness), and making sure no one dies needlessly in another Pearl Harbor or September 11. But the real question is, what does the Democratic party stand for, besides a unicameral government populated by Democrats? Not much else.

for the last several decades a prime tenet of the repubican manifesto is smaller government, less interference in the economy, and a hands off approach
I like those aspects of the Republican party, unfortunately the party has been hijacked by neo-cons.

Which is why I'm Libertarian - liberal on most social issues, and I advocate as free a market as possible (while also keeping corruption in check, but not being overzealous about it)

The Republican Party stands for many things, including decreasing the crime rate, making jobs, fighting terrorism (Yes, I had to include it, despite its obviousness), and making sure no one dies needlessly in another Pearl Harbor or September 11. But the real question is, what does the Democratic party stand for, besides a unicameral government populated by Democrats? Not much else.

Sorry, but this statement is just full of ignorance. According to your statement, the Democratic party wants people to break into others' homes and just take stuff, wants people to go around begging in the streets because they don't have a job, wants terrorists wandering the streets and blowing up buildings.

Any Political party wants the same things. Protecting national security and... economic prosperity(?). The only difference between the partys is how they wish to accomplish this. The Republican party wishes to promote this through defeating terrorism at its core and leaving our economy in the hands of the American People. The Democratic party wants the nation to focus on social issues at home, relieving states of their economic burden by putting the burden on the government, and bringing our troops home and defeating terrorism with the help of other nations. The Communist party believes that a communist government will help the country's economy and defense. The Green Party believes that the nation would benefit from taking care of the planet. The Nazi party believes that the problems lie with imperfections within the human race.

All of the political parties want positive results for this Nation through different means. It is up to the electorate, you and other eligible voters, to decide which of these policies would best help us.
It is, however, not your choice to decide that any political party wants to increase crime rate, let terrorism grow, or support joblessness. :mad:

The Republican Party stands for many things, including decreasing the crime rate, making jobs, fighting terrorism (Yes, I had to include it, despite its obviousness), and making sure no one dies needlessly in another Pearl Harbor or September 11. But the real question is, what does the Democratic party stand for, besides a unicameral government populated by Democrats? Not much else.
Clarification:
Crime rate - you obviously are ignoring CORPORATE crime rate, else you'd be apparently lying or contradicting yourself .. stay tuned, it could happen again.
Making jobs - apparently for people outside of the country for which they are personally party to.
Fighting terrorism - okay, like you said, obvious, so why are many of the contracts for Homeland Security programs going to outsourced locations like India and Bermuda? (look it up) ... and apparently making it easier to cross the border from Mexico to supplement cheap labor for corporations and to deprive citizens of that party's country of their own capacity for jobs (and i saw WITH MY OWN EYES the REPUBLICAN "president" declare that the jobs would be made available to other parties if Americans weren't interested in working) ... whoa, that crosses all three prior topics ....
And, bafflingly belligerent (apparently) in your post, so no one else dies needlessly in another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor? Are you sane? Explain how many of the people dying right now for Bush & Co. are dying for the right reasons? Needfully?
Maybe you need to read up on the real differences between republicans and democrats (historically and currently, note the difference) before you say something as low-brow as this post seems to be.

The Republican Party stands for many things, including decreasing the crime rate, making jobs, fighting terrorism (Yes, I had to include it, despite its obviousness), and making sure no one dies needlessly in another Pearl Harbor or September 11. But the real question is, what does the Democratic party stand for, besides a unicameral government populated by Democrats? Not much else.

Sorry, but this statement is just full of ignorance. According to your statement, the Democratic party wants people to break into others' homes and just take stuff, wants people to go around begging in the streets because they don't have a job, wants terrorists wandering the streets and blowing up buildings.

Any Political party wants the same things. Protecting national security and... economic prosperity(?). The only difference between the partys is how they wish to accomplish this. The Republican party wishes to promote this through defeating terrorism at its core and leaving our economy in the hands of the American People. The Democratic party wants the nation to focus on social issues at home, relieving states of their economic burden by putting the burden on the government, and bringing our troops home and defeating terrorism with the help of other nations. The Communist party believes that a communist government will help the country's economy and defense. The Green Party believes that the nation would benefit from taking care of the planet. The Nazi party believes that the problems lie with imperfections within the human race.

All of the political parties want positive results for this Nation through different means. It is up to the electorate, you and other eligible voters, to decide which of these policies would best help us.
It is, however, not your choice to decide that any political party wants to increase crime rate, let terrorism grow, or support joblessness. :mad:
Forgive me for sounding redundant, i took too long to post (last post).
Well stated.

....On the contrary, Bush has called for lower taxes on multiple occasions. With a lower revenue, the government is unable to handle all of the needs of the country and instead needs to rest the burden on the state/city/county, etc..



This is the problem. Lower taxes, larger government, some war thing, and high expenditures. These are not republican ideals.

Lower taxes is the ideal of Republicans. I'm not sure of the exact quote, but Bush said something along the lines of reducing taxes and letting the American people decide what to do with their money.
He wants to keep the government influence out of the economy by letting the people decide what they want to do with it. This reduces the control over the people held by the government.

If you lower taxes, you won't have enough money to fund programs such as welfare or medicare and will have to rely on the states to fund these programs. This is another example of a smaller government. Let the states handle the problems instead of the government.

Some war thing? I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about here.

The simplest way to put it would be to say that the Republican Party tries to achieve a better United States of America.

But, guess what, the Democratic Party is also trying to achieve a better United States of America.

So, what's the difference?

Each party has its own ideals about what it is that would make the U.S. better. (surprise, surprise) But to start pointing out platforms is very difficult. Political views make up a huge continuum, with each party only taking up a decent section of the range. But within each section, the continuum continues. And over time, the views of the people in the parties change, so the parties as a whole will change. You can try to point out platforms that each party stands on, but someone is always gonna stand there and point at the "track record" that the party has on those issues and how much it sucks. But, if the issue had been completely resolved so that everyone was happy with it, then why would it even be an issue and require a stance?

The most distinguishing qualities I can find in each party are the following:
Democrats = Equality
Republicans = Liberty

Both major parties suffer from an identity crisis lately. Neither stands where they did even 20 years ago. Sadly, the line between them has blurred as they both attempt to co-opt each other's issues for broader appeal. The Republican party is guiltier of this recently. It's no longer about serving their voting public, it's about maintaining their power. In addition, both parties pander to their "extremes" in practically the same breath. I don't think they even know or care what the truth is anymore, or whether they are serving the public interest. Being a Republican, for example, (shades of "compassionate conservatism") who both attempts to take democratic issues off the table in order to get more swing votes and also cows to the religious right to "keep their base" is saying two things that equal nothing.
(1)+(-1)=0. It's moonwalking politics, the appearance of forward motion without going anywhere. These are the parties we have to choose from, the Left-handed Righties and the Right-handed Lefties. Pick your poison!

If only one of the minor parties would make their 15% of votes to recieve official status and federal matching funds, then the major parties would be compelled to form coalitions. It would be the same thing as their doing now, effectively. But at least it would be above board and in plain sight. A centrist (swing vote) party would rule the world if it existed.

Both major parties suffer from an identity crisis lately. Neither stands where they did even 20 years ago. Sadly, the line between them has blurred as they both attempt to co-opt each other's issues for broader appeal. The Republican party is guiltier of this recently. It's no longer about serving their voting public, it's about maintaining their power. In addition, both parties pander to their "extremes" in practically the same breath. I don't think they even know or care what the truth is anymore, or whether they are serving the public interest. Being a Republican, for example, (shades of "compassionate conservatism") who both attempts to take democratic issues off the table in order to get more swing votes and also cows to the religious right to "keep their base" is saying two things that equal nothing.
(1)+(-1)=0. It's moonwalking politics, the appearance of forward motion without going anywhere. These are the parties we have to choose from, the Left-handed Righties and the Right-handed Lefties. Pick your poison!

If only one of the minor parties would make their 15% of votes to recieve official status and federal matching funds, then the major parties would be compelled to form coalitions. It would be the same thing as their doing now, effectively. But at least it would be above board and in plain sight. A centrist (swing vote) party would rule the world if it existed.

The Republican Party stands for:
Greed, Corruption, Ignorance, Death, Racism, Lies, Theft, Fundementalism.

Clarification:
Crime rate - you obviously are ignoring CORPORATE crime rate, else you'd be apparently lying or contradicting yourself .. stay tuned, it could happen again.


Um ... Corporate crime was taking place during the 90's (The Clinton Era remember) they were caught during the Bush Era. So who's contridicting who?

Sounds to me that the Dems are light on Corporate crime (see: totally ignored it) not the Reps.

Anthalmycia,

I agree with most of what you said, up until this point


Democrats = Equality


How can you possibly say that giving people money for the rest of their lives (see welfare) and inabling them in that life has anything to do with equality.

Remember the quote: "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach the man to fish and feed him for a lifetime"?

Welfare is giving people fish, W2 (like in Wisconsin) is teaching them to fish. W2 came about during and from a Republican Governer's Term.

I know that there are republicans here. What does your politcal party stand for? Have you lost all sight of ANY ideals? Are you competing out of habit and reflex?

Or is it really all about money?

Simple as this the republican party as with the democratic party generally takes an overall view that a majority of its constituents want… meaning as times change so does the party.

This is politics … specially with two parties having a lot of room to move around (meaning there are only two main parties so they generally have a lot of leeway overtime to change focus without seeming too much like another party)

Really all political parties do this … it is all a matter of what the people who vote for them want … or the people that get voted in as head (or through popular support) generally lead things in some small way


So short answer … peoples values change and the makeup and balance of the people in the party change … overall creating a different view point. This happens to all groups of people.

Well, liberals tend to think based more on emotion, (i.e. "Oh they're poor, let's give them money.") Conservatives tend to think based more on common sense (i.e. "Oh, they're poor, let's find them a job so that they can contribute something to society.")

Republicans are about finding people jobs??? *LSHTMSOHN* Then why are they giving tax breaks to corporations that outsource?

Republicans are about finding people jobs??? *LSHTMSOHN* Then why are they giving tax breaks to corporations that outsource?
No, they aren't finding jobs for America. Screw them. THey are finding jobs for those who need them outside America lol :)

....On the contrary, Bush has called for lower taxes on multiple occasions. With a lower revenue, the government is unable to handle all of the needs of the country and instead needs to rest the burden on the state/city/county, etc..

Lowering taxes alone does not shrink government nor shift the tax burden or any responsibilities to the local level. Lowering taxes all by itself simply balloons the deficit and the debt. This is what is happening today, but Republicans, most of them it seems, are incapible of seperating facts from rhetoric. WAKE UP!

Remember the quote: "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach the man to fish and feed him for a lifetime"?

Yes. But ponder this. Without having a fish to eat, the man will starve before he can learn to fish.
You need to benefit them, but make a requirement of this benefication taking some sort of Job training, getting a new job, or something along those lines. Then you keep them from going under and becoming a drain on society, improve your workforce, and eventually get them back into the work force.

Yes. But ponder this. Without having a fish to eat, the man will starve before he can learn to fish.
You need to benefit them, but make a requirement of this benefication taking some sort of Job training, getting a new job, or something along those lines. Then you keep them from going under and becoming a drain on society, improve your workforce, and eventually get them back into the work force.

Exactly which is what W2 does, it feeds them (gives them money to live) while teaching them (gives them training to better themselves). Which is exactly why I cited it as an example.

It is called W-2 or Wisconsin Works and was created in Wisconsin (USA) under now Health and Human Services director (former Repblican Governer of Wisconsin) Tommy Tompson.

Oh, and by the way, when teaching someone to fish, isn't it customary to actually be fishing (thus catching food)?

The republican party no longer can mantain it's self declared moratorium on virtues.
The people's views towards George Bush are a reflection of their importance over virtues. George Bush stands strong on certain issues and refuses to deviate from them. This somewhat defines a strong sense of loyalty present in the Christian religion. (IMO, unwavering loyalty isn't always the best, however. Remaining loyal to a commander that decided to bomb an entire city out of spite, an extreme example, is not good while remaining loyal to income ranges, a more liberal view of Republican values, while neglecting the needs of the rest of the country may not be good either.)

Not a single person can claim that the Bush Administration stands on at the front of a 'smaller government platform'.
On the contrary, Bush has called for lower taxes on multiple occasions. With a lower revenue, the government is unable to handle all of the needs of the country and instead needs to rest the burden on the state/city/county, etc.. Lower taxes also leaves the economic state of the country in the hands of the people. Leaving the decision to the people on how to spend their money is a hands off approach. IMO, I don't believe that people would willingly cut their own paychecks to fund programs to help the poor and/or disabled, ie: welfare and medicare. A hands off approach especially helps the rich. The rich become richer, because they don't have to pay for the people under them and because the Government's lack of business regulation allows them to circumvent many social issues that interfere with profits. -Extreme cases but certainly plausible.

the government is at it's largest thanks to the department of homeland security
The power of the government is its ability to reinforce specific policies and control on the nation. While the increase in power to homeland security increases the scope of the military, unless the U.S. becomes a martial State, their power will remain limited to helping specific interest groups with information (specific interest groups ranging from the airline company to a supreme court jury/judge).

Also, let's not forget the Republican views towards gay marriages. The institution of marriage was originally, a Christian one and it is the Christian aspect of the Republican party that opposes gay marriages. IMO, because marriage has become so intertwined with the economic status of a couple, the separation of Church and State should apply to gay marriages. Marriage is no longer simply a religous pairing, but instead a major change in your economic status with regards to the government.

The War on Terror in Iraq, a highly debated issue, also very slightly represents Christian ideals rather than our Nation's security. The ideas in my head aren't fully formulated yet, but who can't see the similarity's between the United State's ideal of spreading Democracy across the world and the original colonist's ideal of spreading Christianity across the United States through Native Americans?
-Feel free to tear me a new one on this position.

Btw, if you can guess what major party I'm rooting for, you get a cookie.
Hint: it's not Republican










I wouldnt be long winded in this, describe alot of things, debate some, talk about others etc etc...But Ill get right to the heart of this post...







What kind of cookie...? :D

"Give a man a fish and he'll know where to come for fish. Teach him to fish and you've just destroyed your market base."

- Republican Jesus