NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed a lot of political posturing and finger pointing, and I can't help, not being associated with either party, but notice that there is really no difference.

When Bush Sr. was in power the Democrats and Republicans got along because each had control. When Clinton came into power the republicans villainized the democrats and in so doing ended up villainizing themselves. Now with GWB the republicans have all the power and the democrats are trying to villainize the republicans and are villainizing themselves.

Here's my take. Bush Sr. was a pointless leader who did nothing. Clinton, while he had personal problems practically falling out of his ass, managed to put the country back on track, lower the deficit and get things going. GWB is an idiot. I don't think many people can reasonably argue that he isn't. There are other people controlling his speeches and all, he just needs to wave, but he still is an idiot and a nightmare for this country. Unfortunately, the people in the Senate and the Congress ake him look worse and he takes the blame.

Either way...there isn't a huge difference whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House, this country need to get back on track and realize who we are. Do we want to be th overweight, undereducated, couch potato embarassment of the wold?

Or America, land of freedom and pride...

You know, I debate constantly whether I would rather have America have a string of good leaders to make her a good nation, or to have a string of bad leaders and bring her down and out once and for all, so the saner areas of the world can move on. I really don't know whether I want America to be an overweight pointless embarrassment or a good strong nation.

But for the matter at hand, there honestly isn't that much difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are Conservative, Republicans are Reactionary, and though they have their sticking points, in all honesty they are very similar. And in general they both suck at running the country. It often makes me wish for a multi-party system.

He said, while saitting down typing, making no effort to really learn anything, growing fat. :p

Admittedly, I do spend time typing. The growing fat part i am avoiding though via cutting back on snacking while programming and actual excercising daily.

So I try. I also decided to avoid going out to dinner as the portions have become so ridiculously large I can't bare to eat or waste all that food.

Democrats are Conservative, Republicans are Reactionary

huh? :confused:

huh? :confused:

Yes I know. It doesn't seem that way. But what passes for "Liberal" in America is conservative anywhere in Europe, Canada, or Latin America.

Based purely on the political compass, Republicans are so far right as to be Reactionary, while Democrats are moderately right enough to be called Conservative; IMHO.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Go to Analysis, then click View Analysis which will explain more what I'm talkiing about.

I thought Democrats were liberal, Republicans were conservative, and it's Bush that was reactory?

The differences between the two (I'm a registered Democrat, but have yet to vote a straight party ticket, I vote on the person in question, tyvm) is that the republicans are for big business, and the democrats are for human rights. A better explination: republicans are there for corporate america, all their business practices, what makes money, while Democrats are concerned with equality, the right to chose what you do to/with you body (abortion, drugs, gay vs. straight, etc), and freedom. But you need both when running a country, which is why bipartisanship is supposed to work so well and be so special. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way. Which, in truth, is sad.

Also, a quick thought of mine: Pride cometh before the fall. Every time I hear someone say 'proud to be an American', that Bible quote goes thru my head. Be happy to be an American, be proud of yourself (to a degree), be proud to know the people that you know, and be proud to have the family that you have. But America is a place, pure and simple.

You know, I debate constantly whether I would rather have America have a string of good leaders to make her a good nation, or to have a string of bad leaders and bring her down and out once and for all, so the saner areas of the world can move on. I really don't know whether I want America to be an overweight pointless embarrassment or a good strong nation.

But for the matter at hand, there honestly isn't that much difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are Conservative, Republicans are Reactionary, and though they have their sticking points, in all honesty they are very similar. And in general they both suck at running the country. It often makes me wish for a multi-party system.

We have MMP in New Zealand, which effectively means that our two main parties cannot govern alone and have to make coalitions with smaller parties. It's a step in the right direction, but it's still the two main parties making most of the decisions, plus a few concessions to the coalition partner. There's also a good chance that the major partner will eat the minor party alive in government, we've had one implode already. So there are no easy solutions, but it seems to me that US politics are very right wing and involve little genuine choice. You'd probably have a wider range of options under some kind of proportional system. For example, right-wing libertarians don't seem to have any voice in the US.

Would you be a democracy if you could only vote for people who were near the exact same as the previos person?

Only a royal screw-up like W Bush could make me think that Democrats could actually be a remarkable improvement from what is happening now. I've always been a liberal, but would enjoy seeing more independant canidates allowed to run the same size campaigns(the campaign fund 'game' they play here is revolting).

But like I said, usually, it isn't a huge deal, but dumb ol' W has got me wondering if he's the anti-christ(and i'm not religious!).......

I thought Democrats were liberal, Republicans were conservative, and it's Bush that was reactory?

The differences between the two (I'm a registered Democrat, but have yet to vote a straight party ticket, I vote on the person in question, tyvm) is that the republicans are for big business, and the democrats are for human rights. A better explination: republicans are there for corporate america, all their business practices, what makes money, while Democrats are concerned with equality, the right to chose what you do to/with you body (abortion, drugs, gay vs. straight, etc), and freedom. But you need both when running a country, which is why bipartisanship is supposed to work so well and be so special. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way. Which, in truth, is sad.

Also, a quick thought of mine: Pride cometh before the fall. Every time I hear someone say 'proud to be an American', that Bible quote goes thru my head. Be happy to be an American, be proud of yourself (to a degree), be proud to know the people that you know, and be proud to have the family that you have. But America is a place, pure and simple.

In the US, "liberal" seems to just be a political label indicating that you side with the Democrats. The Democrats themselves don't really seem to qualify as liberal. In this I'm going partly off my observations and partly off the political compass website.

NZ's government at them moment is very centrist, and this is the left-wing option of the two major parties. Political debate often seems to be defined around the positions of the major parties, so the spectrum in the US is basically the liberal and conservative ends of the 'conservative, authoritian' spectrum.

For example, right-wing libertarians don't seem to have any voice in the US.

That's a great point. They tend to be placed in a sub-category, underneath regular Republicans. Which is a shame because I tend to think Libertarians (sometimes) have the right idea. I definitely think they're the most likable right-wing types.

We have MMP in New Zealand, which effectively means that our two main parties cannot govern alone and have to make coalitions with smaller parties. It's a step in the right direction, but it's still the two main parties making most of the decisions, plus a few concessions to the coalition partner. There's also a good chance that the major partner will eat the minor party alive in government, we've had one implode already. So there are no easy solutions, but it seems to me that US politics are very right wing and involve little genuine choice. You'd probably have a wider range of options under some kind of proportional system. For example, right-wing libertarians don't seem to have any voice in the US.

At the moment, anyone who is not a Republican Christian Male has little voice in the US. But as far as elections, yes, you will not see the liberterian, socialist, green party, or independent runners allowed in debates or polls or anything else. Yet the Democrats and Republicans both say they support a multi-party system. What a load of hooey.

I also had a friend who wanted to run for Senator for his district. He was a professor of programming at a SUNY college, well educated and experienced in running his own business. Sound great right?

The board of elections told him he needed 4000 signatures (no big deal) and over $100,000 in his personal bank account to cover the campaign. He said, "So if only the rich can run for office, how are the elections fair?".

And that's what it boils down to...only the rich can win...and since there is little diversity in the rich, there is little difference in the parties that run this place.

ah!

See, i had some concern about running for a house of representatives seat, but unfortunately, I know it's gonna cost me tons of cash in order to do it, and that breaks my heart....

Wonder if the original George (a.k.a. George Washington) or any of the other people who worked so hard to get the ball rolling that is now the U.S. of A saw this one coming?

ah!

See, i had some concern about running for a house of representatives seat, but unfortunately, I know it's gonna cost me tons of cash in order to do it, and that breaks my heart....

Wonder if the original George (a.k.a. George Washington) or any of the other people who worked so hard to get the ball rolling that is now the U.S. of A saw this one coming?

It's the system of class-warfare that we live in these days(forever). The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. All politicians(in the US) started off as wealthy men of law, and the trend was never stopped(Andrew Jackson was cool). But unfortunately, people in this country have become too complacent about their own self-enrichment(education, culture), and more worried about material possessions(SUV's, those stupid spinners), at which point they stop trying, and spend the rest of their lives paying the bills, saving for the kids college tuition, and watch reality TV at night after dinner till it's time for bed, only to do it all over the next day.

Because those guys in Washington will handle everything, they can be trusted.............?

I have to say, if anyone out there really thinks that Republicans are "reactionaries," you've obviously never met a real reactionary.

There are some out there who fit this description I'm sure, but it's a ridiculous generalization. A lot of people make the mistake of assuming that evry other Republican in our government is a neocon like Bush is, when nothing could be farther from the truth. The Republican party is growing so large, that fissures are starting to manifest themselves within its ranks. The Republicans, essentially, are split between the [comparatively] sane small government faction and their statist, neoconservative counterparts. In a way there's a much larger difference between Republicans and Republicans than there are differences between Democrats and Republicans.

I have to say, if anyone out there really thinks that Republicans are "reactionaries," you've obviously never met a real reactionary.

There are some out there who fit this description I'm sure, but it's a ridiculous generalization. A lot of people make the mistake of assuming that evry other Republican in our government is a neocon like Bush is, when nothing could be farther from the truth. The Republican party is growing so large, that fissures are starting to manifest themselves within its ranks. The Republicans, essentially, are split between the [comparatively] sane small government faction and their statist, neoconservative counterparts. In a way there's a much larger difference between Republicans and Republicans than there are differences between Democrats and Republicans.

Interesting observation and I have to agree. I don't have a party and the major reason is the fact that they are all a bit insane in some way.

I've noticed a lot of political posturing and finger pointing, and I can't help, not being associated with either party, but notice that there is really no difference.

When Bush Sr. was in power the Democrats and Republicans got along because each had control. When Clinton came into power the republicans villainized the democrats and in so doing ended up villainizing themselves. Now with GWB the republicans have all the power and the democrats are trying to villainize the republicans and are villainizing themselves.

Here's my take. Bush Sr. was a pointless leader who did nothing. Clinton, while he had personal problems practically falling out of his ass, managed to put the country back on track, lower the deficit and get things going. GWB is an idiot. I don't think many people can reasonably argue that he isn't. There are other people controlling his speeches and all, he just needs to wave, but he still is an idiot and a nightmare for this country. Unfortunately, the people in the Senate and the Congress ake him look worse and he takes the blame.

Either way...there isn't a huge difference whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House, this country need to get back on track and realize who we are. Do we want to be th overweight, undereducated, couch potato embarassment of the wold?

Or America, land of freedom and pride...


It's the nature of two party politics. Whatever party is in power the other party is going to pretend to be like it. Right up until Dubya came along. But even he ran as a moderate and a consensus builder. Then he turned out not to be.

But there is some difference between the two. Take a look at the recent bankrupcy deform bill. Since this country was founded there was an understanding that if you lend money to people who probably won't be able to pay it back, then it is tantamount to a bad investment. We label the person as a bad investment and say "you probably shouldn't lend to this person anymore," but we didn't turn such people into indentured servants.

Recently the Republicans passed a law saying that ordinary people can't file for bankrupcy. Rich people still can, but not poor people. Yes, Republicans passed a law that said only rich people can go bankrupt. Now 17 Democrats voted for this bill, but every single Republican voted for it.

The Democrats tried to add an amendment to it that exempted people who went bankrupt because of a debilitating illness or injury that kept them from working so that they could file for bankrupcy. The Republicans voted it down.

The Democrats tried to add an amendment that exempted people who went bankrupt because they were called to military service and weren't able to manage their businesses, so they could file for bankrupcy under the old system. The Republicans voted it down.

The Democrats tried to add an amendment that would exempt the victims of natural disasters, like the people caught in hurricane Katrina who have lost their jobs, their homes, and in many cases their families. But thanks to the Republicans voting the amendment down, they won't lose their debt.

There is a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. It's the difference between 212 degree farenheit water and 211 degree farenheit water. If either one is poured on you it will hurt like hell, but if you draw a line between the two of them and keep making them go further and further apart, eventually the 211 degree water will approach something tolerable and even pleasant, whereas the 212 degree water will eventually become plasma and radiation that is instantly leathal.

I have to say, if anyone out there really thinks that Republicans are "reactionaries," you've obviously never met a real reactionary.

There are some out there who fit this description I'm sure, but it's a ridiculous generalization. A lot of people make the mistake of assuming that evry other Republican in our government is a neocon like Bush is, when nothing could be farther from the truth. The Republican party is growing so large, that fissures are starting to manifest themselves within its ranks. The Republicans, essentially, are split between the [comparatively] sane small government faction and their statist, neoconservative counterparts. In a way there's a much larger difference between Republicans and Republicans than there are differences between Democrats and Republicans.

They don't all have to be neo-cons. They do what the neo-cons tell them. The republican party is a relative monolith. If the general of an army is insane, then the whole army will do insane things. It doesn't matter that he has sensible and rational lieutenants, they'll be following insane orders.

Right now, the neocons are in charge of the Republican party. If you vote Republican, you vote neo-con.

The Democrats don't have such cohesion. They're a coalition party. Voting democrats is like playing Russian Roulette. Voting Republican is like playing that version of Russian Roulette where a bunch of guys sit at a table and take turns kicking a landmine under the table (check out the Darwin awards for the predictable results.)

Under Republicans man exploits man,
Under Democrats it's just the opposite.

I have to say, if anyone out there really thinks that Republicans are "reactionaries," you've obviously never met a real reactionary.

There are some out there who fit this description I'm sure, but it's a ridiculous generalization. A lot of people make the mistake of assuming that evry other Republican in our government is a neocon like Bush is, when nothing could be farther from the truth. The Republican party is growing so large, that fissures are starting to manifest themselves within its ranks. The Republicans, essentially, are split between the [comparatively] sane small government faction and their statist, neoconservative counterparts. In a way there's a much larger difference between Republicans and Republicans than there are differences between Democrats and Republicans.

As far as I can tell, this goes for Democrats and Republicans. Both of them are, on average, very similar. If you take people who actually consider their opinions rather than swallow them whole, and then fit them into dem/rep, you just end up with a mess.

There's a word for that - "republicrats".

I guess the question now is when will the American people wake up to this and do something. The time has come to take the power back to the people. As it is the system is set up so that only the politicians will have control.

Where is the democracy?

Under Republicans man exploits man,
Under Democrats it's just the opposite.

The US Liberals (mostly Democrats) enable exploitation of the "oppressed" with their constant victim rhetoric and tendency towards emotional decision-making. They see the government as the "great mother", enabling an environment of dependence and victim hood, and as such, constantly look for governmental solutions to every problem under the sun. They do not trust people to handle their own affairs, because they don't know what is best for them.

The US Conservatives (mostly Republicans) believe people can rise above their circumstances, given an environment conducive to success. They expect people to help themselves, and see government's role as creating an environment of opportunity rather than enablement, primarily by reducing or limiting the invasiveness of government policies, because people are typically smart enough to know what is good for them.

Under Republicans man exploits man,
Under Democrats it's just the opposite.

The only difference between capitalism and communism is that
in capitalism, it's dog-eat-dog. With communism it's the other way around."
Mediterranean Cafe, Berkeley, CA.

The US Liberals (mostly Democrats) enable exploitation of the "oppressed" with their constant victim rhetoric and tendency towards emotional decision-making. They see the government as the "great mother", enabling an environment of dependence and victim hood, and as such, constantly look for governmental solutions to every problem under the sun. They do not trust people to handle their own affairs, because they don't know what is best for them.

The US Conservatives (mostly Republicans) believe people can rise above their circumstances, given an environment conducive to success. They expect people to help themselves, and see government's role as creating an environment of opportunity rather than enablement, primarily by reducing or limiting the invasiveness of government policies, because people are typically smart enough to know what is good for them.

Well, um, nice to see that someone swallows the propaganda whole, it'd be a shame if it all went to waste...

The Republicans gain political capital from blaming victims for their misfortune, Democrats gain it by pretending to give a shit while only offering tokenistic support. Net result is that large parts of the US might as well be in the third world.

The Republicans gain political capital from blaming victims for their misfortune, Democrats gain it by pretending to give a shit while only offering tokenistic support. Net result is that large parts of the US might as well be in the third world.

Excelent analysis imho.

The US Liberals (mostly Democrats) enable exploitation of the "oppressed" with their constant victim rhetoric and tendency towards emotional decision-making. They see the government as the "great mother", enabling an environment of dependence and victim hood, and as such, constantly look for governmental solutions to every problem under the sun. They do not trust people to handle their own affairs, because they don't know what is best for them.

The US Conservatives (mostly Republicans) believe people can rise above their circumstances, given an environment conducive to success. They expect people to help themselves, and see government's role as creating an environment of opportunity rather than enablement, primarily by reducing or limiting the invasiveness of government policies, because people are typically smart enough to know what is good for them.
That's how the Republicans would like you to see things. The Democrats have a view that is just as skewed, but in the other direction. Politicians are all cut from pretty much the same cloth. They are after power. What they do with it is even pretty much the same. They use it to get more power.

There might be some subtle differences, like who to tax, who to give the proceeds to...But the end results are pretty much the same. Sure there's a difference between the parties, but nothing dramatic.

The US Liberals (mostly Democrats) enable exploitation of the "oppressed" with their constant victim rhetoric and tendency towards emotional decision-making. They see the government as the "great mother", enabling an environment of dependence and victim hood, and as such, constantly look for governmental solutions to every problem under the sun. They do not trust people to handle their own affairs, because they don't know what is best for them.

Interesting point of view. Although inaccurate. The liberals are more against corporate control as opposed to government control. They want to represent the needs of the people by making legislation that speaks to people's needs.

The US Conservatives (mostly Republicans) believe people can rise above their circumstances, given an environment conducive to success. They expect people to help themselves, and see government's role as creating an environment of opportunity rather than enablement, primarily by reducing or limiting the invasiveness of government policies, because people are typically smart enough to know what is good for them.

So by using a failed economic strategy (e.g. Trickle-down economics) the Republicans run up the debt Sky High while offering breaks to corporations that neither lower their prices on goods nor enable workers to have better conditions nor give back to the community.

How exactly does allowing businesses to move their lower echelon of jobs overseas help out the little man who needs a job? Where exactly is the environment of opportunity with no jobs and only the highest earning 50% of the population (who get the breaks) able to put their children through college in order to have a shot at bettering themselves?

I believe that some historical accident made the US (and the western world in general) what it is today.
The parties can't act any other way than the way they are acting, because our system works like that. The rich are the oligarchs. They control the ressources, the people and naturally the government. The government is supposed to be elected by the people, based on some democratistic philosophy, but it doesn't happen because the rich are in control of everything. They are above governments. They can move funds everywhere on the planet in a minute. They can make the richest country on earth look like third world in a decade, just by moving their wealth around.
When your government report to you, they explain the market is what it is and that noone can go against the market, and they are right. They are just powerless.
The problem is no more an american problem, it is now a global one which can not be resolved inside the boundaries of your borders. It's high time to develop a global human conscience imho.

A financial war is looming. China is opening its financial market, making one more barrier fall. They want to compete in the finalcial market. Billionaires are rising. Actually they're growing an underclass of workers. Western government are welcoming the move. All the rich want their place in China. They will fight for their share of profit. But this war is not one like the previous ones. Countries aren't fighting each other anymore. It's a war between the rich and the poor. Governments are irrelevant. The rich will move from China to the US to Europe to India to China, where there is most profit to be done. Governments will compete to attract the rich and they will bow down to the last of their demmands. And this war won't be victimless. It will be more bloody than any war before. Poverty is more deadly than any of the so much feared nuclear weapons. People will die by millions of hunger and desease.

This whole thread so far is full of well-reasoned rational observations (even Psylos's rather non-up-lifting piece :( ). Where do all you folks hide in the other threads?

As far as the US is concerned, yes, the problem is the 2-party system, which is emminently corruptible. Both parties try to act like it's supposed to be this way, but it's not; and when they feel pressure, they just deride multi-party systems as somehow not serious, as if all those European nations never do anything. Multi-party systems are corruptible, but it is harder to cement the corruption in place, so I really think Americans need to go that way. Public pressure from voters (by supporting civil rights/voting rights law suits (yay, tort law!)) could influence the Judiciary into enforcing the various laws that could stop the two parties from shutting others out.

As things stand, it's not an illusion; there is no difference. The Republicans and the Democrats got into bed with each other right after the Civil War, and they've just been trading platforms back and forth ever since. According to historian Walter Karp's book The Politics of War (highly recommended), it all started with trying to keep the Progressive Party out of elections.

I believe that some historical accident made the US (and the western world in general) what it is today.
The parties can't act any other way than the way they are acting, because our system works like that. The rich are the oligarchs. They control the ressources, the people and naturally the government. The government is supposed to be elected by the people, based on some democratistic philosophy, but it doesn't happen because the rich are in control of everything. They are above governments. They can move funds everywhere on the planet in a minute. They can make the richest country on earth look like third world in a decade, just by moving their wealth around.
When your government report to you, they explain the market is what it is and that noone can go against the market, and they are right. They are just powerless.
The problem is no more an american problem, it is now a global one which can not be resolved inside the boundaries of your borders. It's high time to develop a global human conscience imho.

A financial war is looming. China is opening its financial market, making one more barrier fall. They want to compete in the finalcial market. Billionaires are rising. Actually they're growing an underclass of workers. Western government are welcoming the move. All the rich want their place in China. They will fight for their share of profit. But this war is not one like the previous ones. Countries aren't fighting each other anymore. It's a war between the rich and the poor. Governments are irrelevant. The rich will move from China to the US to Europe to India to China, where there is most profit to be done. Governments will compete to attract the rich and they will bow down to the last of their demmands. And this war won't be victimless. It will be more bloody than any war before. Poverty is more deadly than any of the so much feared nuclear weapons. People will die by millions of hunger and desease.

A bleak picture to be sure. I think as we are the road to this there need be a rise against this power machine. The question is...how?

This whole thread so far is full of well-reasoned rational observations (even Psylos's rather non-up-lifting piece :( ). Where do all you folks hide in the other threads?

I'm in the other threads...but no one ever responds to me :sniff:


As things stand, it's not an illusion; there is no difference. The Republicans and the Democrats got into bed with each other right after the Civil War, and they've just been trading platforms back and forth ever since. According to historian Walter Karp's book The Politics of War (highly recommended), it all started with trying to keep the Progressive Party out of elections.

It is also interesting to note that the rise of the Republican party was mostly due to the reaction of the poulace to the Whigs, who were "too conservative and too financially powerful".

They don't all have to be neo-cons. They do what the neo-cons tell them.
Right, which is why Bush can't get his party on the Social Security boat right now. Read a newspaper.

The republican party is a relative monolith. If the general of an army is insane, then the whole army will do insane things. It doesn't matter that he has sensible and rational lieutenants, they'll be following insane orders.
Except that party politics aren't structured like a military hierarchy. Comparisons can be made of course, but I don't think this is a legitimate one. I don't see Ron Paul or Arnold kowtowing to Bush, and I've seen numerous Republicans question his policies.

A more accurate way of putting it would be that the government is a relative monolith, since the Republicans are ordering around government employees, not necessarily other Republicans.

Right now, the neocons are in charge of the Republican party. If you vote Republican, you vote neo-con.
That would appear to be the case, yes. They may have actually gotten my vote in '04 if they had managed to keep Rove and Bush and their acolytes as far away from office as possible.

there isn't a huge difference whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House
Meh, they're all Republicrats

Meh, they're all Republicrats

Or Demopublicans

Republican (http://www.lambcity.com/images/LCC%20Hillbilly%20weekend%202004/hillbilly11.jpg)

Democrat (http://www.americanpatrol.com/RALLIES/JULY42000/IMAGES/burnflag000704-450w.gif)

One's in power, the other isn't.

A bleak picture to be sure. I think as we are the road to this there need be a rise against this power machine. The question is...how?
I'm in the other threads...but no one ever responds to me :sniff:
Depressing how no one ever responds to you, isn't it? And nevertheless you ask the good question imo. Unfortunatelly, I don't have any answer either, not right now at least.
It looks to me like people play politics like a game (and that's not surprising that an obvious game like NationStates is so popular). They're not trying to build any future, or fighting for something higher. They're fighting because it's fun. They like the buzz of politics, they get angry, they point fingers, and accuse each other. The two party system works like a game. One side wins, the other loose. 4 years latter comes the next round. They works their catch phrases and they make their campaign better, for a chance to enjoy the victory that could make them happy for some time.
But they don't change the world. The world will pass the democrats and the republicans. While playing the game, they forget about the struggle for survival which is happening. They could raise their conscience but the easy path always prevails.
Sorry about this other bleak picture, but where is the hope? Can you people give me some hope? Please!

I've noticed a lot of political posturing and finger pointing, and I can't help, not being associated with either party, but notice that there is really no difference.

When Bush Sr. was in power the Democrats and Republicans got along because each had control. When Clinton came into power the republicans villainized the democrats and in so doing ended up villainizing themselves. Now with GWB the republicans have all the power and the democrats are trying to villainize the republicans and are villainizing themselves.

Here's my take. Bush Sr. was a pointless leader who did nothing. Clinton, while he had personal problems practically falling out of his ass, managed to put the country back on track, lower the deficit and get things going. GWB is an idiot. I don't think many people can reasonably argue that he isn't. There are other people controlling his speeches and all, he just needs to wave, but he still is an idiot and a nightmare for this country. Unfortunately, the people in the Senate and the Congress ake him look worse and he takes the blame.

Either way...there isn't a huge difference whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House, this country need to get back on track and realize who we are. Do we want to be th overweight, undereducated, couch potato embarassment of the wold?

Or America, land of freedom and pride...

democrats tend to be a bit closer to socialism (financial equality)... republicans tend to veer more toward free enterprise (financial freedom)...

how do you measure that?

start with income tax brackets/percentages -- usually, democrats will tax people more than republicans will

secondly, look at the opposing sides' views of the welfare state -- republicans are generally more apt to limit the amount of welfare an able person can draw, while democrats will allow them to remain on welfare longer

since we're in a war, we're spending a lot (and with good reason -- our security is more important than probably anything, lest we be killed by enemies)... but generally, democrats want to spend more -- want a bigger federal government -- than republicans do.

although, both are known to chase the pork

going back in time, there was the states' rights vs. federal rights arguments

and etc.

I'm in the other threads...but no one ever responds to me :sniff:




It is also interesting to note that the rise of the Republican party was mostly due to the reaction of the poulace to the Whigs, who were "too conservative and too financially powerful".

Well, the Republicans were once the "party of Lincoln." How times change... :rolleyes:

PS: I would have responded to you but you keep saying everything I already think. How many "like he said"s can the mods tolerate? ;)

Depressing how no one ever responds to you, isn't it? And nevertheless you ask the good question imo. Unfortunatelly, I don't have any answer either, not right now at least.
It looks to me like people play politics like a game (and that's not surprising that an obvious game like NationStates is so popular). They're not trying to build any future, or fighting for something higher. They're fighting because it's fun. They like the buzz of politics, they get angry, they point fingers, and accuse each other. The two party system works like a game. One side wins, the other loose. 4 years latter comes the next round. They works their catch phrases and they make their campaign better, for a chance to enjoy the victory that could make them happy for some time.
But they don't change the world. The world will pass the democrats and the republicans. While playing the game, they forget about the struggle for survival which is happening. They could raise their conscience but the easy path always prevails.
Sorry about this other bleak picture, but where is the hope? Can you people give me some hope? Please!
This is a very serious question that I've been trying to find some answer to for a long time. I think such an answer can only take the form of a philosophy, but I haven't yet been able to formulate it. There is a way out of this cycle, but we who wish to find it have to find a way of talking about it.

Of course, if we keep dragging our asses, the environment will likely solve the problem for us. :p (Sorry, Psylos, I know you were hoping to feel better.)

Well, the Republicans were once the "party of Lincoln." How times change... :rolleyes:

PS: I would have responded to you but you keep saying everything I already think. How many "like he said"s can the mods tolerate? ;)

Sorry...I'll turn off my psychic powers.

Depressing how no one ever responds to you, isn't it? And nevertheless you ask the good question imo. Unfortunatelly, I don't have any answer either, not right now at least.
It looks to me like people play politics like a game (and that's not surprising that an obvious game like NationStates is so popular). They're not trying to build any future, or fighting for something higher. They're fighting because it's fun. They like the buzz of politics, they get angry, they point fingers, and accuse each other. The two party system works like a game. One side wins, the other loose. 4 years latter comes the next round. They works their catch phrases and they make their campaign better, for a chance to enjoy the victory that could make them happy for some time.
But they don't change the world. The world will pass the democrats and the republicans. While playing the game, they forget about the struggle for survival which is happening. They could raise their conscience but the easy path always prevails.
Sorry about this other bleak picture, but where is the hope? Can you people give me some hope? Please!


Here is some hope. Make it work for you. Set up some e-mail bombs for your senators and congressman and the white house. Dutifully e-mail them everyday and tell your friends to the same. Keep it up and maybe they will only raise an eyebrow...but that's a start.

Then start sending actual letters. Ask to talk on radio shows. Write editorials for your local paper. Do everything you can.

When you turn 35 run for something, even it's town mayor or something. The younger you are the better your chance of getting noticed. Try to infiltrate from within.

Let your message constantly be..."I'm sick of the Politics and the Politicians. I want change for the better of the people"

They will tell you the game is too complicated, you have to play by their rules, but screw them...

That's just an idea...but it's something...and if everyone tries maybe something positive will happen. Maybe nothing will happen, but at least we know we tried right?

It's the nature of two party politics. Whatever party is in power the other party is going to pretend to be like it. Right up until Dubya came along. But even he ran as a moderate and a consensus builder. Then he turned out not to be.

But there is some difference between the two. Take a look at the recent bankrupcy deform bill. Since this country was founded there was an understanding that if you lend money to people who probably won't be able to pay it back, then it is tantamount to a bad investment. We label the person as a bad investment and say "you probably shouldn't lend to this person anymore," but we didn't turn such people into indentured servants.

Recently the Republicans passed a law saying that ordinary people can't file for bankrupcy. Rich people still can, but not poor people. Yes, Republicans passed a law that said only rich people can go bankrupt. Now 17 Democrats voted for this bill, but every single Republican voted for it.

The Democrats tried to add an amendment to it that exempted people who went bankrupt because of a debilitating illness or injury that kept them from working so that they could file for bankrupcy. The Republicans voted it down.

The Democrats tried to add an amendment that exempted people who went bankrupt because they were called to military service and weren't able to manage their businesses, so they could file for bankrupcy under the old system. The Republicans voted it down.

The Democrats tried to add an amendment that would exempt the victims of natural disasters, like the people caught in hurricane Katrina who have lost their jobs, their homes, and in many cases their families. But thanks to the Republicans voting the amendment down, they won't lose their debt.

There is a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. It's the difference between 212 degree farenheit water and 211 degree farenheit water. If either one is poured on you it will hurt like hell, but if you draw a line between the two of them and keep making them go further and further apart, eventually the 211 degree water will approach something tolerable and even pleasant, whereas the 212 degree water will eventually become plasma and radiation that is instantly leathal.

my view is that the only people Democrats are good for are those who don't want to work. Neither party will tax them, but Democrats will let them stay on welfare longer (or want to...).

...and maybe short-term, they're good for union employees... but then when the union forces the business to close, guess what -- those workers no longer have jobs. hurting businesses helps absolutely nobody, and unions would do well to learn that.

finally, someone called Bush an idiot without providing any evidence. I'll defend him with two major points in his favor:

a)He lowered taxes on everyone (or wanted to), which freed up much-needed capital in the wake of 9/11.

b)He has shown the resolve to go after terrorists, to not bow to terror like a weaker president might have.

c)He has shown the resolve to not only take down Saddam, but to stay in Iraq and get the job done... to help Iraq become a stable representative/democratically-elected republic.

d)He has shown the willingness to protect law-abiding Americans from those who would harm us... for if we are DEAD, we can't enjoy ANY rights.

He sounds like an idiot sometimes... spewing words like misunderestimate and strategery will do that to anyone... but he is not an idiot.

Finally, no president has the power to control the American economy... a president can help it (IE, with tax cuts, which frees up more money to go into the economy) or hinder it (by raising taxes -- which hurts businesses, investors and consumers -- or with bad trade policy), but a President should never be given total credit for a strong economy (Clinton was lucky with the tech boom) or blame for a downswing (Bush was unlucky to be hit with 9/11).

Here is some hope. Make it work for you. Set up some e-mail bombs for your senators and congressman and the white house. Dutifully e-mail them everyday and tell your friends to the same. Keep it up and maybe they will only raise an eyebrow...but that's a start.

Then start sending actual letters. Ask to talk on radio shows. Write editorials for your local paper. Do everything you can.

When you turn 35 run for something, even it's town mayor or something. The younger you are the better your chance of getting noticed. Try to infiltrate from within.

Let your message constantly be..."I'm sick of the Politics and the Politicians. I want change for the better of the people"

They will tell you the game is too complicated, you have to play by their rules, but screw them...

That's just an idea...but it's something...and if everyone tries maybe something positive will happen. Maybe nothing will happen, but at least we know we tried right?
Many good ideas. Grass roots movements work. I remember several years ago, during a past recession, Congress was going to vote themselves a huge pay raise. A radio disc jockey started a campaign for people to mail tea bags to their congressmen, and they got so many, the pay raise got axed for that year.

But I have reservations about reforming the system from within. Where the problem is a fundamental failure of principles (often, but not always the case), I think the best route is to try and replace the old system with a new one. First, I guess, you have to define your principles and then choose your systems in accordance with them. Where no system will do, create a new one. For instance, I'm an artist vehemently opposed to censorship. Therefore, I choose never to take government grants for any project because I don't want to be put through their filters. This forces me to find alternative ways to get my art out to the public. It's more difficult and less profitable, but I would rather stick to my own ethics.

my view is that the only people Democrats are good for are those who don't want to work. Neither party will tax them, but Democrats will let them stay on welfare longer (or want to...).

...and maybe short-term, they're good for union employees... but then when the union forces the business to close, guess what -- those workers no longer have jobs. hurting businesses helps absolutely nobody, and unions would do well to learn that.

finally, someone called Bush an idiot without providing any evidence. I'll defend him with two major points in his favor:

a)He lowered taxes on everyone (or wanted to), which freed up much-needed capital in the wake of 9/11.

b)He has shown the resolve to go after terrorists, to not bow to terror like a weaker president might have.

c)He has shown the resolve to not only take down Saddam, but to stay in Iraq and get the job done... to help Iraq become a stable representative/democratically-elected republic.

d)He has shown the willingness to protect law-abiding Americans from those who would harm us... for if we are DEAD, we can't enjoy ANY rights.

He sounds like an idiot sometimes... spewing words like misunderestimate and strategery will do that to anyone... but he is not an idiot.

Finally, no president has the power to control the American economy... a president can help it (IE, with tax cuts, which frees up more money to go into the economy) or hinder it (by raising taxes -- which hurts businesses, investors and consumers -- or with bad trade policy), but a President should never be given total credit for a strong economy (Clinton was lucky with the tech boom) or blame for a downswing (Bush was unlucky to be hit with 9/11).
A few propagandists will always crop up. More I'm sure will follow soon.

Do you understand that none of these arguments will be valid to people who do not accept the underlying principle behind them?

A few propagandists will always crop up. More I'm sure will follow soon.

Do you understand that none of these arguments will be valid to people who do not accept the underlying principle behind them?

Finally, someone whos not an idiot speaking the truth about Bush. We need some more smart people on this site who dont automaticly say "BUSH IS AN IDIOT"! Good post, and good man.

A few propagandists will always crop up. More I'm sure will follow soon.

Do you understand that none of these arguments will be valid to people who do not accept the underlying principle behind them?

what underlying principles are offensive... financial freedom? killing terrorists? taking down bad leaders? helping countries become free (or more free)?

i understand that some people favor financial equality (socialism) over financial freedom (free enterprise/capitalism)... that one I get. I don't understand the arguments against helping the Iraqis, 80% of whom had been oppressed for decades, to go from a totalitarian regime to a democratically elected form of government (which they're still working on, of course). I don't understand the arguments against killing terrorists. etc.

That one I get. I don't understand the arguments against helping the Iraqis, 80% of whom had been oppressed for decades, to go from a totalitarian regime to a democratically elected form of government (which they're still working on, of course). I don't understand the arguments against killing terrorists. etc.
The argument against the war is that some people are not sure if it helps or not the iraqis. Of course, the whole thing turnt into a propaganda against republicans, even though many democrats did support the war as well. I believe killing is not the goal. Those you call terrorists are using the same arguments against the americans. From their point of view, Saddam was a product of the americans. They were fighting Saddam then and now they're fighting the americans. And the cycle goes on. They fight since so long that some of them forgot why they were fighting at all. Their goal has moved from freedom fighting to killing as much of the enemies as they can kill. Sometimes, they don't even care about their own lives so long as they harm the enemy.
The west is horrified, the west call them animals. Those who kill the animals are granted hero status. But aren't they as human as us? Don't they have eyes, hearts and brains? Aren't they caught and stuck in the same cycle as we are? Are we so different that we would never kill an innocent for our ideals? Where is the love?

what underlying principles are offensive... financial freedom? killing terrorists? taking down bad leaders? helping countries become free (or more free)?

i understand that some people favor financial equality (socialism) over financial freedom (free enterprise/capitalism)... that one I get. I don't understand the arguments against helping the Iraqis, 80% of whom had been oppressed for decades, to go from a totalitarian regime to a democratically elected form of government (which they're still working on, of course). I don't understand the arguments against killing terrorists. etc.
Psylos sums up the problem with the whole "war on terror" idea very well, so I'll refer you to him. But I will say this: the argument against killing terrorists is the argument against *killing*, i.e. the argument against prosecuting wars. It asks you to consider the concept of war, not the concept of your enemy. It asks you to consider that there are issues greater than terrorism, greater even than the crime of 9/11. (BTW, I'm a New Yorker, so don't, okay? -- you know what I mean, all you out there.) War is a contagion, a corrupting force that spreads not only from country to country, but into the general mindset of a nation, taking over all its functions -- a parasite that eventually cripples its host. Look at Katrina -- our government was so focused on *war* that it was caught completely flat-footed by a disaster that was not an act of war. And look at the result.

Please understand that the principles don't offend me (though the politicians do); rather I reject them because I consider them unethical and counterproductive. I'm talking about the ideas of war as a political tool, pre-emptive strikes, that fighting wars overseas is going to keep the country safe from attack at home. All of these are based on fundamental concepts and principles that I don't accept.

I don't believe that fighting a war against nations will be a true deterrant to an enemy that has no nation. I don't believe the so-called war on terror is making any of us safer; rather I believe it provides the terrorists with believable propaganda against us.

I don't believe that war was the only way to "help" the Iraqis. In fact, I believe there have been several opportunities to help the Iraqis get rid of Saddam (through money, propaganda, international pressure, and covert actions) that were deliberately passed up by several US administrations because keeping Saddam suited their agendas at the time. Rhetoric notwithstanding, judging by past performance, I don't believe this administration gives a rat's ass about the Iraqi people, and I think a lot of Iraqis would agree with me on that -- and that makes them open to the rhetoric of our enemies.

And whatever happened to that old-fashioned principle that two wrongs don't make a right? Starting wars is wrong. Circumstances don't matter. It's a bad act. If you believe that it is bad, then all the rhetoric or propaganda saying it's good, will not be accepted.

Taking down bad leaders? I don't accept that we have any right to do so, at least not by force. Right now, a lot of countries think we have a bad leader. What if they decide to live by Bush's philosophy and take down our leaders? Do you really think we can beat them all off, forever?

Bush and his gang believe that US has the right to run the world because it has the strength to do it. I don't believe that's a civilized attitude to take, and I also think they're factually wrong. I don't believe we actually do have the strength and/or resources to run the world, and the more we try, the more we run ourselves into the ground. We are becoming weaker, not stronger.

Finally, someone whos not an idiot speaking the truth about Bush. We need some more smart people on this site who dont automaticly say "BUSH IS AN IDIOT"! Good post, and good man.
Why, thank you! :)

(ps: good *woman* ;) )

PS, everyone: All this debate about whether and why Bush is wrong are off the topic of this thread, which is interesting enough to stick with, IMO.

It's the system of class-warfare that we live in these days(forever). The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. All politicians(in the US) started off as wealthy men of law, and the trend was never stopped(Andrew Jackson was cool). But unfortunately, people in this country have become too complacent about their own self-enrichment(education, culture), and more worried about material possessions(SUV's, those stupid spinners), at which point they stop trying, and spend the rest of their lives paying the bills, saving for the kids college tuition, and watch reality TV at night after dinner till it's time for bed, only to do it all over the next day.

Because those guys in Washington will handle everything, they can be trusted.............?

Hence the reason I'm considering finding a way to run. Besides, I'm sick of survivor, or the hurricane Katrina news casts (maybe a new idea for a reality show? they find a hurricane about to hit, drop twenty people on the land before it does, and see which ones live and which ones die... btw, that's a joke, probably a poor one, but it made me laugh), and because, honestly, I don't trust those people down there as far as i can throw them, and I'll be honest, I throw like a girl.

I am not sure where you are coming from because to call the Republicans reactionary and the Democrats conservative is just not real. The Democrates are attempting to take the US the direction of the rest of the Western world - socialism. They may not be as far along as they would like, but the US is also a fairly young country relative to much of the world. The current Republican party (neo-conservatives) are playing right along and taking this country down the socalism road. Noe-cons are not against big government. They just think they can do it better than everybody else (of course, they are absolutely wrong on this one.)

A true conservative has not won the US Presidency since Regan and even he spent way too much, but the Democrat controled congress did have something to do with that. Neo-cons are definitly not reactionary. If you look at what GWB has done as President, you will find he passed a lot of the things Clinton could not get done (i.e. No Child Left Behind Act.)

Here is a better assessment of the last three Presidents. George H.W. Bush was a great foreign relations diplomat, but did not have the understanding of domestic issues and therefore the Democrats go much of what they wanted. Bill Clinton failed to get almost anything done as President, but the technology boom gave him a great economy even his outrageous tax increases could not kill. George W. Bush inherited a recession started by the end of the technology bubble (this recession started the last year of the Clinton Presidency - even liberal economics admit this.) He then made some wise moves in tax cuts, but started spending like a drunken sailor. After that he got the US into a stupid war in Iraq that cost even more.

The correct comment is that they two parties are not really that far apart. The Democrats are just trying to make the US a socialist country a bit quicker than the neo-con Republican.

*applauds to the post above this, sorry I didn't read you name, a bit sleepy today*

Good points, very agreeable. However, I still feel that both parties are more concerned about their own pockets, and not the pockets of the people. but that's just me.

Esmiral,

I worked in political campaigns for a number of years. During that time I got to know a number of politicians personally. There were some who definity were in it for themselves. There were also some who were truly sincere. I got to know John Ashcroft (former senator, attorney general etc.) While I did not always agree with him, he truly believed he was doing the right thing.

I guess this is actually off topic, but I just wanted to let you know their are all kinds in the political area.

Esmiral,

I worked in political campaigns for a number of years. During that time I got to know a number of politicians personally. There were some who definity were in it for themselves. There were also some who were truly sincere. I got to know John Ashcroft (former senator, attorney general etc.) While I did not always agree with him, he truly believed he was doing the right thing.

I guess this is actually off topic, but I just wanted to let you know their are all kinds in the political area.
I don't doubt Ashcroft's sincerity. The Inquisition thought they were doing the right thing, too. My point is that the result of actions matter more than the intent of the actor.

But I take your point, too. Partisanship is bad because it cuts you off from individuals who might otherwise prove to be allies based on personal principles. It encourages an us vs. them mindset.

Yes I know. It doesn't seem that way. But what passes for "Liberal" in America is conservative anywhere in Europe, Canada, or Latin America.

Based purely on the political compass, Republicans are so far right as to be Reactionary, while Democrats are moderately right enough to be called Conservative; IMHO.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Go to Analysis, then click View Analysis which will explain more what I'm talkiing about.


thanks for the link...however i am a little confused about where i stand according to the results.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.05

The differences are numerous. It seems reaction to stranded motorists is among them. :p

*applauds to the post above this, sorry I didn't read you name, a bit sleepy today*

Good points, very agreeable. However, I still feel that both parties are more concerned about their own pockets, and not the pockets of the people. but that's just me.

I agree!