NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi folks,
as an outsider I have to say that I am completely bemused by
the extreme polarity US citizens have between those two above name
parties who really don't seem to be all that different from each other.

From what we see of the internal US matters there are some minor
differences of approach noted and maybe some actual issue differences
but again rather minor.

In terms of International Affairs the differences seem to disappear altogether

In the last election for example

There was GW Bush who was for the war on Iraq and for continuing the occupation and he would take UN support if offered but it wouldn't
make a darn difference to any decision he made.

Then there was that Senator Kerry who voted for the war on Iraq
and was in favour of continuing occupation and he would ask nicely
for UN support but it wouldn't make a darn difference to any decision
that he made.

Now I know that a lot of antiwar people voted for him
but I wasn't really surprised that he didn't win seeing as there wasn't
exactly clear blue water between the two and why change 1 guy
for another guy with the same stand.

So there are really 2 questions in this thread

What the heck is the difference between the two parties

and why did anti war people vote for Kerry

and why did anti war people vote for Kerry

I have a simple answer for you: America is crazy. :)

I have a simple answer for you: America is crazy. :)

And we're damn proud of it!

What the heck is the difference between the two parties
Republicans are corporatist authoritarians and Democrats are nanny-state authoritarians. Both parties would declare themselves the only legal party if they had the chance, and both are only for allowing what they like and criminalizing what they don’t.
and why did anti war people vote for Kerry
They are trapped in a bi-polar world. If being anti-war is their biggest issue, they should have voted for a third party, like the Libertarians.

1) There's a difference?!? :confused:

2) I suppose people wanted "The lesser of two evils (http://www.burnbush2004.com/samples/large_worse.jpg)"...

Anyway, I say Green Party is the way to go. This 'two-party' government is frustrating.

Differences once existed. They are gone now, thanks to spineless politicians who listen to others over themselves. Not that I really care, anyhow. The nice thing about centrists is that it offends no one, even if it pleases no one. That's what we are seeing in American politics today: centrism.
Karl Rove summemd it up nicely in an interview with Barbara Walters shortly after the election. Clinton governed from the left-of-center, he said, while Bush was at the right-of-center. The difference was that minute. What I can't understand was how Senator Kerry stood for anything. He was the most spineless politician I have ever seen in my life, and yes, he looks just that bad in person. I've met him before. I'm glad it was just for two seconds.

Didn't Kerry want to 'bring the troops home?'

Differences once existed. They are gone now, thanks to spineless politicians who listen to others over themselves. Not that I really care, anyhow. The nice thing about centrists is that it offends no one, even if it pleases no one. That's what we are seeing in American politics today: centrism.
Karl Rove summemd it up nicely in an interview with Barbara Walters shortly after the election. Clinton governed from the left-of-center, he said, while Bush was at the right-of-center. The difference was that minute. What I can't understand was how Senator Kerry stood for anything. He was the most spineless politician I have ever seen in my life, and yes, he looks just that bad in person. I've met him before. I'm glad it was just for two seconds.

Amen to that...he would've made quite the shitty president.

As was pointed out on another thread, the problem with the American two-party system is that all manner of people of political persuasions varying from the extreme right-wing to the moderately right-wing are represented.

In both parties.

It's like that bit in The Blues Brothers when Jake and Elwood are trying to figure out the type of music the band ought to be playing at a roadhouse. Asking the barmaid about this, she replies straight-faced and smilingly, "Both kinds! Country and Western!".

and why did anti war people vote for Kerry
Quite simply because ice cream doesn't have bones

The Difference between the Democratic and Republican parties in the US


I think Lewis Black summed it up best:

The Democratic Party is the party of no ideas.

The Republican Party is the party of bad ideas.

What the heck is the difference between the two partiesWhen the Democratic Republicans split into the Democrats and the Republicans, the Republicans were the anti-slavers and the Democrats were the slavers. Called the civil war. The democrats had to change their policies afterwards...

You're right, there isn't much of a difference between the two (no matter how badly fans of both parties want to believe there is). They're both owned by corporations (including the Democrats) and special interest groups (including the Republicans, who've sold their souls to the Jesus Freaks).

They're both only interested in winning, and neither is capable of thinking beyond the next election.
Personally, I vote Libertarian (when it's an option). When there isn't an LP candidate available, if I don't believe the other options are attractive, I just don't vote for either. I sleep well after casting my ballot.

Didn't Kerry want to 'bring the troops home?'

As far as I recall on a suggested timescale of maybe but sooner than Bush
would

what is infinity minus 1 again?

I think a lot of the problem is the outdated First Past the Post voting system...it sure doesnt help do anything to dispell the notion that political parties are sports teams, and the election is just a slightly rarer version of the Superbowl...

Hi folks,
as an outsider I have to say that I am completely bemused by
the extreme polarity US citizens have between those two above name
parties who really don't seem to be all that different from each other.

From what we see of the internal US matters there are some minor
differences of approach noted and maybe some actual issue differences
but again rather minor.

In terms of International Affairs the differences seem to disappear altogether

In the last election for example

There was GW Bush who was for the war on Iraq and for continuing the occupation and he would take UN support if offered but it wouldn't
make a darn difference to any decision he made.

Then there was that Senator Kerry who voted for the war on Iraq
and was in favour of continuing occupation and he would ask nicely
for UN support but it wouldn't make a darn difference to any decision
that he made.

Now I know that a lot of antiwar people voted for him
but I wasn't really surprised that he didn't win seeing as there wasn't
exactly clear blue water between the two and why change 1 guy
for another guy with the same stand.

So there are really 2 questions in this thread

What the heck is the difference between the two parties

and why did anti war people vote for Kerry

Well, normally the difference is minimal and only relates to a party for government programs and taxes while the other is minimal government and less taxes, however as of recently the Republican party has been hijacked by religious extremists and specific politicians that want a new world order called PNAC (Partnership for the New American Century) that are manipulating those religious right members. This group is the neo-con element that has control over most of the country.

Democrats really aren't my style, many are as corrupt, and don't much care for preserving precedent. Plus, greater government is always a problem because it quickly becomes a runaway government. And worst of all democrats tend to be gun grabbers.

The entire party system in america is gravitating towards a one-party environment. The Republicians practically have control over two of the three branches - executive and legislative, and are working on the judicial, what with people like Frist calling for "liberal judges" to be targets of mob violence. (Seriously, you'd think you'd want judges who were educated, which is a base meaning of liberal.) In addition, there's the whole 2000 voting scandel, AND the 2004 election scandel in Ohio and elsewhere that was practically completely ignored. Exit polls suddenly aren't useful to an extent never seen before, and all in areas where Bush won the vote? Most unlikely... unless foul play was involved with the voting machines, many of which were manufactured by a republican, etc etc...

Parties like the Green Party, while supported by citizens, would never be able to win anytime soon in the consumer world of america - they propose protecting the environment, and the corporations in charge see that as bad. So these smaller parties will find it practically impossible to raise the kind of money that the two main parties can raise. And politics in America is largely a matter of how much money you can raise and how skillfully you utilize, not a matter of the issues. *sighs...*

That's what we are seeing in American politics today: centrism.

!!!!?!

do we live on the same planet?

The entire party system in america is gravitating towards a one-party environment. The Republicians practically have control over two of the three branches - executive and legislative, and are working on the judicial, what with people like Frist calling for "liberal judges" to be targets of mob violence. (Seriously, you'd think you'd want judges who were educated, which is a base meaning of liberal.) In addition, there's the whole 2000 voting scandel, AND the 2004 election scandel in Ohio and elsewhere that was practically completely ignored. Exit polls suddenly aren't useful to an extent never seen before, and all in areas where Bush won the vote? Most unlikely... unless foul play was involved with the voting machines, many of which were manufactured by a republican, etc etc...

Parties like the Green Party, while supported by citizens, would never be able to win anytime soon in the consumer world of america - they propose protecting the environment, and the corporations in charge see that as bad. So these smaller parties will find it practically impossible to raise the kind of money that the two main parties can raise. And politics in America is largely a matter of how much money you can raise and how skillfully you utilize, not a matter of the issues. *sighs...*

Yes... It's all a big conspiracy. And now you must be killed before you let out the truth!

Yes... It's all a big conspiracy. And now you must be killed before you let out the truth!
He already talked. You secret police are getting slow. Did they cut your budget or something? Probably put the money into the No Child Left Behind Act. I tell you what, it’s a sad state of affairs when the shadow government is passed over for a bunch of spoiled kids, with their hip-hop and MTV. Lousy kids stealing money from the death squads who earned it. YOU HEAR THAT!! MURDER SOME DISSIDENTS AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE YOUR SMALLER CLASS SIZES, DAMN IT!!! Brats.

Hi folks,
as an outsider I have to say that I am completely bemused by
the extreme polarity US citizens have between those two above name
parties who really don't seem to be all that different from each other.

From what we see of the internal US matters there are some minor
differences of approach noted and maybe some actual issue differences
but again rather minor.

In terms of International Affairs the differences seem to disappear altogether...


...What the heck is the difference between the two parties

and why did anti war people vote for Kerry

Let's start with why you see the 2 parties as the same. The U.S. was founded in a framework of Lockean philosophy. Other philosophers such as Montisqeau and Hobbes were influential but at the end of the day John Locke was the philosopher who most influenced the Founding Fathers. That framework has pretty much continued to this day. There is also a tradition in American foreign policy that for the sake of consistency you do make an effort to continue the projects and policies of the previous administration wherever reasonable so that the national foreign policy does not get too schizophrenic for America to survive. A consequence of this is that to outsiders such as yourself we do seem incredibly similar when compared to a place like Europe where Monarchists, Communists, Socialists, Fascists and similar wackos all compete with what *you* would call Liberals with a reasonable expectation of success (Or, as one of my Pol. Sci. profs put it, in Europe Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter would have been members of slightly different wings of the same political party) for very good reason. To an outsider one Lockean seems pretty much like another.

Thus on one Mars Society email list I was treated to the spectacle of Euroleftists and Euroleftist wannabes complaining because Americans took the Bill of Rights too seriously and were pure evil for wanting such a Bill to be part and parcel of any Martian constitution. It's not just on the Left either. I remember reading with bemusement a book by a British Special Forces that complained both the FBI and the CIA were too soft because they took the Constitution too seriously. Given the time period in which he wrote it I could just imagine the bitter laugh our libs would have had at that but he was in dead earnest and it really does seem to be a real but subtle cultural divide between Europe and America upon occasion.

But the differences are quite real!

Even before Marx the Democrats were heirs to the traditions of the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican traditions of what would now be called populism and Andrew Jackson with his disdain for bankers and banking did nothing to change this. So its no surprise that it was easy for them to absorb first the Socialist-lite attitudes of FDR and then the stronger strain of Communism inherent in pigs like Noab Chomsky. Likewise, the G.O.P. has pretty much inherited the pro-business attitudes of the Federalists and the Whigs. That Chomsky-like strain which was absorbed with McGovern's nomination in 1972 caused a particular divergence since it brought a rather nasty "No enemies to the Left" meme into the Democrats that has left them scornful of the military ever since. One reason the GOP has gained strength at their expense is that we have absorbed quite a few of those Democrats who did not like this change at all. That strain is also why those who are "anti war" would cast their vote for him. He was of that tradition and it did not matter what he *said* because they felt they could rely on what he would *do*.

This brings us to another point. Because America is a 2 party system, as opposed to the parliamentarian system that Europe tends toward, the 2 parties in some ways are best regarded as *coalitions*. That's why the primary elections they hold are supremely important because this is where just which faction within the party will be on top. So in a sense it did not matter what Kerry or Dean or *anybody* nominated by the Demcrats might say or intend because if they won by whatever margin the "anti war" people provided then the "anti war" Left would have a whip hand over them that they wouldn't be able to ignore. Lyndon Johnson and to a greater extent Jimmy Carter were examples of the way a President can be gutted by his own party if he becomes disliked by his base. These days the Democrats are lurching further and further to the Left as seen by their selection of first Nancy Pelosi and then Howard Dean as party chairmen. How far this will go or for how long it will last is an open question. My prediction is that if it goes on the difference between parties will be as strong as you might wish but will matter little since Lockean principles, even at 4th and 5th hand, are too much a part of the American tradition for any party to stray beyond them and still be viable.


(Edit: Laerod, thanks for the tip. It's very much appreciated and I'll keep it in mind! ^_~)

(I'll post now and then edit/continue this so the system doesn't kick me out the last time I started a long post).I take it you have the same problem I had. Copy what you wrote or sign in again on a different page on your browser. Also, if it asks you to sign in again, don't. Go back. This way whatever you wrote won't be lost yet.

Parties like the Green Party, while supported by citizens, would never be able to win anytime soon in the consumer world of america - they propose protecting the environment, and the corporations in charge see that as bad. So these smaller parties will find it practically impossible to raise the kind of money that the two main parties can raise. And politics in America is largely a matter of how much money you can raise and how skillfully you utilize, not a matter of the issues. *sighs...*

Wait. I'm independent as well. Let me ask you something, how the HELL do you expect independents to hold presidency when most haven't even begun to try to win local offices and states? Your to damned concerned with the big elections, that you haven't even realized we need to begin to win over LOCAL politics and districts. You all expect to much. To all independents, don't lose hope or get dismayed. Start off with the basics. Thats how it works in every situation. You get the basics covered, THEN you move to the big leagues.

Exit polls suddenly aren't useful to an extent never seen before, and all in areas where Bush won the vote? Most unlikely... unless foul play was involved with the voting machines, many of which were manufactured by a republican, etc etc...

nah. the obvious answer is that exit polling has always worked before, and still works in general, but there is something special about american elections that allows the exit polls to be consistently off by a huge amount all in the same direction across multiple states. something special that most certainly is not large scale electoral fraud. no siree.

nah. the obvious answer is that exit polling has always worked before, and still works in general, but there is something special about american elections that allows the exit polls to be consistently off by a huge amount all in the same direction across multiple states. something special that most certainly is not large scale electoral fraud. no siree.

Uh, no. There likely was voter fraud. The electronic machines do NOT give a paper trail or receipt for the vote people made. The machines were made by a company that was basicly republican owned. And you did know John Bolton was in charge of the votes in that florida mess.

Even if you can't believe a party would actually commit voter fraud, there is definetly a conflict of intrest to begin with which SHOULD NOT ****ING HAPPEN.

Look a the FDA and its officals who also work for drug companies. Americans are getting ****ed over. Just because you don't keep up with the damned news doesn't mean it isn't true.

Hmm. The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans?

Black and white.
Poor and rich.
Good and evil.

But they're all liars, so what difference does it make?

The number of American flags flown at each party's events is the only real difference.

He already talked. You secret police are getting slow. Did they cut your budget or something? Probably put the money into the No Child Left Behind Act. I tell you what, it’s a sad state of affairs when the shadow government is passed over for a bunch of spoiled kids, with their hip-hop and MTV. Lousy kids stealing money from the death squads who earned it. YOU HEAR THAT!! MURDER SOME DISSIDENTS AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE YOUR SMALLER CLASS SIZES, DAMN IT!!! Brats.
Damn you! I had to walk out onto the balcony to keep from waking my roommate up with my laughter. :mad: :p

Damn you! I had to walk out onto the balcony to keep from waking my roommate up with my laughter. :mad: :p
Sorry ’bout that. :D

Haven’t seen you around here in a while, by the way.

A lot of people who voted for Kerry thought he was an antiwar canidate. He attacked Bush's way of handeling the war. Many assumed this ment he was against it, and given that Howard Dean did so well being anti-war Kerry never bothered to correct the record. Furthermore Kerry never sugested how he would handle it differently. Since it seems Bush mostly just listened to his military advisors and I assume Kerry would do the same its unlikely they would have conducted the war any differently.

Really the majority of americans are arrogant and selfish. That means as far as foreign policy is concerned its never whats best for the world, but what's best for the U.S. Because of this the foreign policy of both parties seems to be equally antagonistic and dissliked by the rest of the world.

When the Bush administration when to the UN instead of asking for support he proceded to engage in childish namecalling. I think Kerry would have approached this more maturely. Either way, most countries are not interested in sacrificing large amounts of people and money for a cause they never agreed with and for a country they dislike.

Bush and Kerry did have big differences on domestic issues, which most Americans seem to care more about. Things like abortion, affirmative action, gay mariage, etc.

I think the debate on affirmative action is telling because its basically equivolant of putting a bandaid on a gushing wound when in reality someone needs to stop the bleeding. The two parties would rather waste time and resources debating this, while they put little effort into fixing the real problems of inequality (racism, crime and underfunding of schools in black and hispanic neighborhoods, lack of fluency in English in hispanic neighborhoods, etc).

One reason we are so polarized is that each party insulted the other side. Even if their policies aren't much different. A white Christian man might think twice about voting Democrate after Howard Dean insulted them and made them out to be the source of all evil. A gay man is unlikely to vote Republican after they have made them out to be the source of all evil.

Republicans are corporatist authoritarians and Democrats are nanny-state authoritarians. Both parties would declare themselves the only legal party if they had the chance, and both are only for allowing what they like and criminalizing what they don’t.
That's the thing. They're not even as different as you say they are. To me both parties look like corporatist nanny authoritarians.


Karl Rove summemd it up nicely in an interview with Barbara Walters shortly after the election. Clinton governed from the left-of-center, he said, while Bush was at the right-of-center.
It's shocking that Clinton could ever be considered to the left.

Well, normally the difference is minimal and only relates to a party for government programs and taxes while the other is minimal government and less taxes, however as of recently the Republican party has been hijacked by religious extremists and specific politicians that want a new world order called PNAC (Partnership for the New American Century) that are manipulating those religious right members. This group is the neo-con element that has control over most of the country.
HA! The Republicans haven't stood for particularly smaller government since about 1932. In the 19th century, it was they who expanded the government beyond all previous limits.

Bush and Kerry did have big differences on domestic issues, which most Americans seem to care more about. Things like abortion, affirmative action, gay mariage, etc.

It's pathetic that these relative non-issues are so important as to take priority over foreign policy, but I'll talk about them.

Abortion: doesn't matter very much. Kerry is openly pro-choice, Bush is pro-life, but doesn't care enough to do anything about it.

Affirmitive action: both of them support it.

Gay marriage: not even important enough to merit discussion.

That's the thing. They're not even as different as you say they are. To me both parties look like corporatist nanny authoritarians.


It's shocking that Clinton could ever be considered to the left.


HA! The Republicans haven't stood for particularly smaller government since about 1932. In the 19th century, it was they who expanded the government beyond all previous limits.


It's pathetic that these relative non-issues are so important as to take priority over foreign policy, but I'll talk about them.

Abortion: doesn't matter very much. Kerry is openly pro-choice, Bush is pro-life, but doesn't care enough to do anything about it.

Affirmitive action: both of them support it.

Gay marriage: not even important enough to merit discussion.

My point exactly. That's what I was getting at with the affirmative action thing. Both parties seem to perfer to distract American's from the real issues. Maybe so that no one notices they are both "corporate nanny state parties" which someone allready mentioned. Is Bush in favor of affirmative action? I care so little about it that I didn't even know. Out of those issues I do think abortion is important. And Bush has done a lot in that area. He has stoped goverment funding of embryonic stem cell research and his judicial appointments are mostly if not all pro-life. Considering that our judicial branch is able to legislate abortion laws this is very important.

What difference? I'm starting to think it's more about where you live than anything else, especially as familys tend to vote as blocks.

Actually the extream wings of the parties are very, very different and at each other's throats, but the canidates fielded almost always try for the center to get that elusive swing vote that puts a person in office. The base just isn't that big.

When it's someone who has consistently fucked things up versus someone who will probably at worst maintain the status quo, what can you do but vote for the latter?

Those foreigners who mock the US for the lack of differnce between parties, I have a hard time thinking of a western democracy that has vast ideological differences between the two main parties except for Israel, which is far from the normal western democracy and doesn't have any main parties at all.

And Bush has done a lot in that area. He has stoped goverment funding of embryonic stem cell research and his judicial appointments are mostly if not all pro-life. Considering that our judicial branch is able to legislate abortion laws this is very important.
Alright point conceded.

Another thing is, that both parties hardly seem to discuss immigration. It's an important issue that is discussed a lot in Europe, but it seems to be of third-rate importance in America. No, sorry, but gay marriage is not more important than this!

When it's someone who has consistently fucked things up versus someone who will probably at worst maintain the status quo, what can you do but vote for the latter?

Those foreigners who mock the US for the lack of differnce between parties, I have a hard time thinking of a western democracy that has vast ideological differences between the two main parties except for Israel, which is far from the normal western democracy and doesn't have any main parties at all.

I can't think of a way to put this delicately, so I'll just come out and say it. It might seem pretty scary now, but that doesn't mean things cannot get worse. Do people lack the imagination to recognize this? It frieghtens me how many voted for Kerry simply because he wasn't Bush, without knowing anything about him. If someone like Hitler (and I'm not comparing Kerry to Hitler) was running against Bush these same people would vote for him saying "at least he's not Bush." It's not that these people would prefer a Hitler-like person over Bush, but simply because they prefer to remain ignorant and just vote for someone because of what he isn't and not because of what he is.

I'm American, but as far as I can tell the parties in European countries do have vast ideological differences. They certainly don't behave as much alike as our parties. I think their criticism is justified.

We need a new governement, our system is waay outdated.
Kinda like trying to run WindowsXP on a computer that still uses massive vaccum tubes @.@

Republicans are corporatist authoritarians and Democrats are nanny-state authoritarians. Both parties would declare themselves the only legal party if they had the chance, and both are only for allowing what they like and criminalizing what they don’t.

They are trapped in a bi-polar world. If being anti-war is their biggest issue, they should have voted for a third party, like the Libertarians.
YAY!

The Redemopublicrats are useless. The sooner people wake up and vote for Freedom instead of Authority the better we will be.

I'll offer my explanation.


First, your view is obviously not uncommon, especially for non-Americans.


The difference comes down to worldviews. The Judeo-Christian worldview (this isn't synonomus with "religious"--it just means that the way of thinking is derived from the culture of christianized nations) versus the Secular-Humanist worldview. The former operates under the assumption that human nature is basically evil and the government's role is to keep that nature in check by limiting its own power (afterall, we are a government run by humans) while still providing its people protection from the consequences of the selfishness of others. The latter operates under the assumption that human nature is basically good and the government's role is to help protect people from the selfishness of a few bad apples.

Nonetheless, the reason you don't see much of a difference on a policy-by-policy basis is that our trifurcate form of government keeps any one nut from changing things too dramatically.

and why did anti war people vote for Kerry

No one voted FOR Kerry, though some people voted against Bush. I know alot of you don't like Bush, but did you honestly want that loser in charge of your country?

Hi folks,
as an outsider I have to say that I am completely bemused by
the extreme polarity US citizens have between those two above name
parties who really don't seem to be all that different from each other.

From what we see of the internal US matters there are some minor
differences of approach noted and maybe some actual issue differences
but again rather minor.

In terms of International Affairs the differences seem to disappear altogether

In the last election for example

There was GW Bush who was for the war on Iraq and for continuing the occupation and he would take UN support if offered but it wouldn't
make a darn difference to any decision he made.

Then there was that Senator Kerry who voted for the war on Iraq
and was in favour of continuing occupation and he would ask nicely
for UN support but it wouldn't make a darn difference to any decision
that he made.

Now I know that a lot of antiwar people voted for him
but I wasn't really surprised that he didn't win seeing as there wasn't
exactly clear blue water between the two and why change 1 guy
for another guy with the same stand.

So there are really 2 questions in this thread

What the heck is the difference between the two parties

and why did anti war people vote for Kerry

There is very little difference...

Democrats tend to be more "socialist" (in matters of degree); whereas The Republicans tend to be more "nationalist" (in matters of degree). Either way; they'll fuck over all of us in the middle, any change they get.

I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'

That about sums it up

The difference comes down to worldviews. The Judeo-Christian worldview (this isn't synonomus with "religious"--it just means that the way of thinking is derived from the culture of christianized nations) versus the Secular-Humanist worldview. The former operates under the assumption that human nature is basically evil and the government's role is to keep that nature in check by limiting its own power (afterall, we are a government run by humans) while still providing its people protection from the consequences of the selfishness of others.
What has this got to do with the Democrats or Republicans? I don't see either party deliberately limiting their power.

Put in rather melodramatic terms, the common politician is like Voldemort. He does anything to gain power, despite he has no cause to further with that power other than the conquest of yet more power.

Put in rather melodramatic terms, the common politician is like Voldemort. He does anything to gain power, despite he has no cause to further with that power other than the conquest of yet more power.

I already linked to this once in another thread, but thought it was interesting enough to link to again. There is a car parked on the street on my way to work that I pass every morning that has this bumper sticker. http://www.playapixie.org/past/000291.php

!!!!?!

do we live on the same planet?
Maybe. What planet are you from, anyhow?

No one voted FOR Kerry, though some people voted against Bush. I know alot of you don't like Bush, but did you honestly want that loser in charge of your country?


At the risk of being judged to be flaming or whatever it is called.

I think the answer may be that they really didn't want that loser in charge
so they voted for Kerry despite him having voted for the war and
his stated intention to continue the occupation
as they felt he hadn't meant to vote for the war and he really
did mean to withdraw troops eventually.

To me as the outsider it was Bush vs Bush Lite and therefore not surprising
that in a competition to be GW, Kerry lost by a tiny margin.

I think Lewis Black summed it up best:

The Democratic Party is the party of no ideas.

The Republican Party is the party of bad ideas.

I was just about to quote him :D

"A republican senator stands and says: "I've got a really bad idea!" Then A democratic senator stands up and says: "And I can make it shittier!""

I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!' That about sums it up

Now your Mr Hicks was an american I had a lot of time for.

Perhaps not the greatest comedian ever but one who I was glad to have
been around to see and definitely one of my own personal favourites.

It's shocking that Clinton could ever be considered to the left.

Not left. Just center left. For one, he did a lot to build an international center-left coalition that included the governments of Tony Blair and Lionel Jospin. They're leftist, but harder lefties have existed. For another, there was his attempt at universal healthcare. And don't forget his taste of judges. Both Clinton nominees voted for New London in Kelo vs. New London.

That's the thing. They're not even as different as you say they are. To me both parties look like corporatist nanny authoritarians.


It's shocking that Clinton could ever be considered to the left.


HA! The Republicans haven't stood for particularly smaller government since about 1932. In the 19th century, it was they who expanded the government beyond all previous limits.


It's pathetic that these relative non-issues are so important as to take priority over foreign policy, but I'll talk about them.

Abortion: doesn't matter very much. Kerry is openly pro-choice, Bush is pro-life, but doesn't care enough to do anything about it.

Affirmitive action: both of them support it.

Gay marriage: not even important enough to merit discussion.

1) The dems are hardly corporatists, and the republicans most definetely don't support a nanny state.

2) True, he was quite capitalist (The US is a very, very capitalist Nation.) But then again, had liberal social views. I think he was sort of a moderate libertarian.

3) Not really. I believe it was FDR that expanded the government beyond its means. It worked back during the depression, but today has turned verything ito a beaurocracy.

4) True.

5) I don't recall Kerry ever stating his stance on abortion...

6) I don't recall Bush ever saying he supported this...

7) True.

Clinton may not be totally considered left, but like presidents on the left before him he didn't take neccessary action in forein affairs.

For the love of God, man, Tony Blair is not a leftist to anyone's thinking. He, like Kerry, Clinton etc. is a product of the great political migraion rightwards we've been having since Nixon dismantle the Bretton-Woods system. This is not the rantings of some disgruntled leftie, it's a fact. If you took a graph and plotted the cocerns of British or US governments since about 73, you'd find that parties on both sides of the divide have been going more and more for right wing economic policies. See political compass for details.

I think Lewis Black summed it up best:

The Democratic Party is the party of no ideas.

The Republican Party is the party of bad ideas.

YAY! :D

I also like how he said that the only thing that is more awful than the Democrats or the Republicans is when they work together. :)

Not left. Just center left. For one, he did a lot to build an international center-left coalition that included the governments of Tony Blair and Lionel Jospin. They're leftist, but harder lefties have existed. For another, there was his attempt at universal healthcare. And don't forget his taste of judges. Both Clinton nominees voted for New London in Kelo vs. New London.
I consider Clinton to be solidly right-wing. Tony Blair and Jospin, they adopt policies from both the right and the left; they are centrists. I don't see how he built a coalition either. The US, Britain and France had always been allies before Clinton appeared.

Clinton may not be totally considered left, but like presidents on the left before him he didn't take neccessary action in forein affairs.
Like those other lazy leftists, FDR, Truman and Johnson, right? :rolleyes:

1) The dems are hardly corporatists, and the republicans most definetely don't support a nanny state.

2) True, he was quite capitalist (The US is a very, very capitalist Nation.) But then again, had liberal social views. I think he was sort of a moderate libertarian.

3) Not really. I believe it was FDR that expanded the government beyond its means. It worked back during the depression, but today has turned verything ito a beaurocracy.

4) True.

5) I don't recall Kerry ever stating his stance on abortion...

6) I don't recall Bush ever saying he supported this...

7) True.
1. Yes they are. Both parties take millions in corporate donations, and once in power they spend more millions on subsidies to corporations and engage in pork projects for the benefit of their corporate sponsors. Both parties are inseparable from corporate Amurca.

2. Libertarians are to the right not the left.

3. Lincoln and co expanded the government and then FDR expanded the government again. It was a natural progression.

4. :)

5. Yes, he's pro-choice on abortion, including the rare procedure that was outlawed a few years back.

6. I think he does. Or at least he does not oppose it. But you know Bush is soft on foreigners.

7. Ay...

It seems that everyone today is moving to the center. Perhaps that is why people are have so much apathy when it comes to politics: and that apathy is the final nail in democracy.

Seems like the U.S. could use a major rethinking of its political structure.

It probably won't do that on its own.

How 'bout a revolution, eh? :mp5: