NationStates Jolt Archive

Growing up my grandfather had always said that democrats were "for the people" while republicans were "for their friends", which when I was a child seemed pretty simple to figure out who was a good guy and who was a bad guy.

Today my 7 year old has explained to me that republicans tell you what you can do with your body, while democrats tell you what you're allowed to do with your money (I simplified her explanation of course)

Do you agree or disagree with either of these characterizations? How would you define each of the parties in 20 words or less?

in before complaining about US centric threads

Well, you have to distinguish between the national and the local levels.
On the national level, the Republicans are the party of corruption, and the Democrats are the party of incompetence.
But on the local level, it's the other way around!

Growing up my grandfather had always said that democrats were "for the people" while republicans were "for their friends", which when I was a child seemed pretty simple to figure out who was a good guy and who was a bad guy.

Today my 7 year old has explained to me that republicans tell you what you can do with your body, while democrats tell you what you're allowed to do with your money (I simplified her explanation of course)

Do you agree or disagree with either of these characterizations? How would you define each of the parties in 20 words or less?

in before complaining about US centric threads

Democrats are Republicans who are ashamed to be called Republicans
Republicans are Democrats who are ashamed to be called Democrats

any party:

a mixed bag of people who are either idealogical about something, greedy for power or in it for the bake sales.

Democrats are Republicans who are ashamed to be called Republicans
Republicans are Democrats who are ashamed to be called Democrats

you . . .managed to say absolutely nothing there . . .I'm actually kind of impressed.

Democrats are Republicans who are ashamed to be called Republicans
Republicans are Democrats who are ashamed to be called Democrats

Profound.

Growing up my grandfather had always said that democrats were "for the people" while republicans were "for their friends", which when I was a child seemed pretty simple to figure out who was a good guy and who was a bad guy.

Today my 7 year old has explained to me that republicans tell you what you can do with your body, while democrats tell you what you're allowed to do with your money (I simplified her explanation of course)

Do you agree or disagree with either of these characterizations? How would you define each of the parties in 20 words or less?

in before complaining about US centric threads

I'd say she's not too far off. Which is probably why I'd likely choose a Democrat over a Republican, if I had to pick a horse in the US political race.

(Specific results may vary, use as directed).

The similarities between Democrats and Republicans far outweigh the differences. If I had to stick with short description only, I would say that Republicans are people who believe that morailty can be enforced while Democrats are people who believe that equality can be enforced.

Republican-limited Government, Higher Economic Freedoms, lower personal freedoms
Democrat-bigger government, lower Economic freedoms, higher personal freedoms

in a nutshell, this is what it comes down to, but depending on who is leading the parties, it is subject to change.

I'd agree with her analysis. I don't think either party is for the people or for their friends inherently...you find both regardless of party lines.

However, neoconservativism does favor strong social control policies, whereas neoliberalism favors strong economic control policies.


I tend to go with neoliberalism of the two, as I have huge issues with telling people "you're bad because you do this". Where the democrats and much of the neoliberal movements fail is that they believe in equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity. I have a problem with this, but not so much as the social one.

Republican-limited Government, Higher Economic Freedoms, lower personal freedoms
Democrat-bigger government, lower Economic freedoms, higher personal freedoms

in a nutshell, this is what it comes down to, but depending on who is leading the parties, it is subject to change.

Your disclaimer saves you, but republicans since Reagan have expanded the government just as much, if not more than, their democratic counterparts (granted, not the best sample size of democrats, but that's what we've got to work with)

it used to be that republicans were for restrained government that was fiscally responsible and thought that getting out of the way was the best way to have things get better. democrats thought that government intervention was important to fixing lots of society's problems and that spending money on a problem was a good idea even if it meant having to pay more taxes.

these days it seems like republicans feel that if you protect the rich, they will make jobs for the rest of us and democrats feel that you need to focus on the middle middle class and let the rich take care of themselves.

or maybe republicans are the party of the america that used to be and democrats are the party of the america that is coming.

or maybe republicans are the party of the religious right allied with the selfishly wealthy and the democrats are the rest of us (of those who want to be allied with a political party) if the republicans have a melt down over the mccain/palin loss (should there be one) im hoping that the democratic party will gain a bunch of moderate republicans.

or maybe republicans are pro-life and pro-gun while democrats are pro-choice and anti-gun.

mostly i find that democrats are for the things that *I* am for and the republicans arent.

you . . .managed to say absolutely nothing there . . .I'm actually kind of impressed.

you... managed to miss the message there... I'm actually kind of impressed. :p

the parties are the same, it's the names that are different.

At one point in time, you would swear that the Republican Party was actually the Democrats.

Fighting for Equal rights for minorities,
Fighting to end segregation,
looking out for the person and not the big companies...

or maybe republicans are the party of the america that used to be and democrats are the party of the america that is coming.



That could be true, but I believe it will be an endless cycle. George Bush screwed up the Republicans, and someone else will screw up the Democrats. It will go back and forth, until a viable 3rd party will come into play, when people get sick of this.

you... managed to miss the message there... I'm actually kind of impressed. :p

the parties are the same, it's the names that are different.

At one point in time, you would swear that the Republican Party was actually the Democrats.

Fighting for Equal rights for minorities,
Fighting to end segregation,
looking out for the person and not the big companies...

At what point in time would this be?

At what point in time would this be?

Up until 1868.

How would you define each of the parties in 20 words or less?

Republican = generally bad.

Democrat = generally good.

Anything else is said to confuse you.

:D

EDIT: Just to be fucking clear, I am joking.

At what point in time would this be?

I would think back in the 40's or something. They are much different now.

Vote Demublican!:p

Republocrat!

That could be true, but I believe it will be an endless cycle. George Bush screwed up the Republicans, and someone else will screw up the Democrats. It will go back and forth, until a viable 3rd party will come into play, when people get sick of this.
our system isnt set up for viable 3rd parties.

we are set up for majority party rule and the major parties will co-opt any issues that will guarantee that they keep their majority status.

our system isnt set up for viable 3rd parties.

we are set up for majority party rule and the major parties will co-opt any issues that will guarantee that they keep their majority status.


I meant like after another civil war or something, because this two party system is dividing the nation, and people are getting really angry.

Republocrat!

But they're 0.1% more left wing than the Demublicans. Commie scum. Why do you hate freedom?

But they're 0.1% more left wing than the Demublicans. Commie scum. Why do you hate freedom?

Because It makes me feel obsolete:(

Where the democrats and much of the neoliberal movements fail is that they believe in equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity.

Since when? And what does "equality of opportunity" mean, anyway?

Growing up my grandfather had always said that democrats were "for the people" while republicans were "for their friends", which when I was a child seemed pretty simple to figure out who was a good guy and who was a bad guy.

Today my 7 year old has explained to me that republicans tell you what you can do with your body, while democrats tell you what you're allowed to do with your money (I simplified her explanation of course)

Do you agree or disagree with either of these characterizations? How would you define each of the parties in 20 words or less?

in before complaining about US centric threads

I agree with your 7-year-old's characterization, but your grandfather had it backwards, or if his analysis wasn't backwards THEN, it certainly is NOW.

Republicans are for the people, no matter what the news media try to get you to believe with their liberal propaganda and liberal issue spins.

Democrats are only for their friends and themselves.

Who cares?

Whether through incompetence, corruption or any other form of stupidity they'll still end up messing up the country. Democrats and Republicans...it's like rooting for a hometown team. It's "your" team, even if they suck or publicly give all of their players steroids.

They're all politicians. They all lie. Democrats or Republicans, they're about lining their own pockets at voter expense. It's just that Republicans are more open about it than Democrats.

I agree with your 7-year-old's characterization, but your grandfather had it backwards, or if his analysis wasn't backwards THEN, it certainly is NOW.

Republicans are for the people, no matter what the news media try to get you to believe with their liberal propaganda and liberal issue spins.

Democrats are only for their friends and themselves.

you sure you don't mean...

The Government is for the people.

Politicians are only for their friends and themselves. :p

Growing up my grandfather had always said that democrats were "for the people" while republicans were "for their friends", which when I was a child seemed pretty simple to figure out who was a good guy and who was a bad guy.

Today my 7 year old has explained to me that republicans tell you what you can do with your body, while democrats tell you what you're allowed to do with your money (I simplified her explanation of course)

Do you agree or disagree with either of these characterizations? How would you define each of the parties in 20 words or less?

in before complaining about US centric threads
Democrats do what seems best to the general public and Republicans do what they think is best.

What *is* best is another matter entirely...

Although at this period in history it's weighted towards the Republicans.

At what point in time would this be?

Honest Abe was A Republican BTW.

Growing up my grandfather had always said that democrats were "for the people" while republicans were "for their friends", which when I was a child seemed pretty simple to figure out who was a good guy and who was a bad guy.

Today my 7 year old has explained to me that republicans tell you what you can do with your body, while democrats tell you what you're allowed to do with your money (I simplified her explanation of course)

Do you agree or disagree with either of these characterizations? How would you define each of the parties in 20 words or less?

in before complaining about US centric threads

Your daughter's explanation is very simplified, but fairly accurate. I'm a member of the Democratic party myself, so I think that your Grandfather's summary is also accurate.

The similarities between Democrats and Republicans far outweigh the differences. If I had to stick with short description only, I would say that Republicans are people who believe that morailty can be enforced while Democrats are people who believe that equality can be enforced.

I'd agree with this. Each party is of course very diverse, which is what you would expect when there are only two viable ones for 300 million-plus people, but in general Republicans are more for respecting tradition and Democrats for respecting unrealized ideals like equality.

Although at this period in history it's weighted towards the Republicans.

Yep. Only a fool would object to wars on two fronts (neither of which is actually attacking the claimed enemy), tripling the national debt, and an economy in the shitter. Right?

Yessir. They sure know what's best.

you... managed to miss the message there... I'm actually kind of impressed. :p

the parties are the same, it's the names that are different.

At one point in time, you would swear that the Republican Party was actually the Democrats.

Fighting for Equal rights for minorities,
Fighting to end segregation,
looking out for the person and not the big companies...

At what point in time would this be?

Honest Abe was A Republican BTW.

Um.

First, are you really saying "Honest Abe" fought for equal rights for minorities, fought to end segregation, and looked out for individuals rather than big companies?

Second, is 1865 really the best the Republicans can do?

Third, I'm not claiming all Republicans throughout history are bad. For example, William Borah is a man I deeply admire (although his foreign policy views were more than a bit naive).

Since when? And what does "equality of opportunity" mean, anyway?

For quite a while, it would seem. Not that I'm entirely against it, mind you. I think some level of socialism is a good thing.


Equality of opportunity, oddly enough, means "equal opportunities". Equal access to food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and education. Equal chance to succeed or fail, regardless of any number of arbitrary guidelines that have appeared since the beginning of mankind...gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, race, religion, politics, etc.

Essentially, it says that the race starts for everyone when the gun sounds...no handicaps, no head starts.

Equality of outcome says, no matter when you join the race, we all skip across the finishline together while singing showtunes.

For quite a while, it would seem. Not that I'm entirely against it, mind you. I think some level of socialism is a good thing.

Equality of opportunity, oddly enough, means "equal opportunities". Equal access to food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and education. Equal chance to succeed or fail, regardless of any number of arbitrary guidelines that have appeared since the beginning of mankind...gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, race, religion, politics, etc.

Essentially, it says that the race starts for everyone when the gun sounds...no handicaps, no head starts.

Equality of outcome says, no matter when you join the race, we all skip across the finishline together while singing showtunes.

And what precisely indicates that Democrats favor equal results instead of equal opportunities?

Most "liberal" laws like the Civil Rights Act, pay equity, etc are precisely about guaranteeing equal opportunity -- in a society where equal opportunity is far from being acheived.

Ultimately we should all want to be Republicans but we live in societies that require us to be Democrats.

I would rather live with low taxes, high personal responsibility in a low-crime society - actually, I do in HK but anyway - but inequality means I feel obligated to share any wealth I have for the greater good. My personal opinion is that high crime rates and low personal responsibility come from inequality, not social welfare systems.

And what precisely indicates that Democrats favor equal results instead of equal opportunities?

Most "liberal" laws like the Civil Rights Act, pay equity, etc are precisely about guaranteeing equal opportunity -- in a society where equal opportunity is far from being acheived.
To be fair, it isn't all democrats...it is a bit of bitterness towards what seems to be more of a local enclave, particularly those involved in education. Little bit of venting.

Growing up my grandfather had always said that democrats were "for the people" while republicans were "for their friends", which when I was a child seemed pretty simple to figure out who was a good guy and who was a bad guy.

Today my 7 year old has explained to me that republicans tell you what you can do with your body, while democrats tell you what you're allowed to do with your money (I simplified her explanation of course)

Do you agree or disagree with either of these characterizations? How would you define each of the parties in 20 words or less?

in before complaining about US centric threads

Oh, sure, everyone talks about the Democrats and Republicans, but no one ever talks about the poor Demoblicans and Repucrats! :(

That could be true, but I believe it will be an endless cycle. George Bush screwed up the Republicans, and someone else will screw up the Democrats. It will go back and forth, until a viable 3rd party will come into play, when people get sick of this.

At which point someone in the 3rd Party will screw it up and the cycle repeats anew.

For quite a while, it would seem.

Do you have any examples?

I think some level of socialism is a good thing.

Socialism is not about equality of outcome, either.

Equality of opportunity, oddly enough, means "equal opportunities". Equal access to food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and education. Equal chance to succeed or fail, regardless of any number of arbitrary guidelines that have appeared since the beginning of mankind...gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, race, religion, politics, etc.

Three things.

First, if that's your aim you must admit that we are very far from such a society, that it would require a great deal more social programs and government intervention in free-market capitalism to get us a good deal closer, and that even then we would not have reached it because there are always extensive influences of arbitrary external circumstances on people's capacity to succeed.

Second, you ignore in your listing, like most people who talk about equality of opportunity, differences in natural biological endowment. Is a person responsible for his or her natural talent, or his or her lack of it? Yet without a doubt such factors play an enormous influence in economic success or failure.

Third, even if we were to achieve such a result temporarily, would it not swiftly fall apart as the resulting inequalities in wealth and power establish new breaks from "equality of opportunity"?

In the context of these considerations, "equality of opportunity" becomes rather chimerical. You can never separate what is genuinely merit-worthy from the effects of arbitrary interfering factors. And as such it makes no sense to oppose, say, various wealth transfer programs on grounds that they are about "equality of outcome" rather than "equality of opportunity." Distributions of wealth are never founded on equality of opportunity.

So what would you have us do instead, Soheran?

Do you agree or disagree with either of these characterizations?

I think they're both wrong. There's a populist character to much of the Republican Party that's worthy of consideration, and the Democrats are also in the pockets of the rich and powerful, if somewhat less so.

How would you define each of the parties in 20 words or less?

I can't think that concisely. It's one of the things that would make me a very poor politician.

So what would you have us do instead, Soheran?

Stop pretending that the distributions of wealth resulting from market capitalism, or any economic system, are now or ever could be founded on "equality of opportunity" in a way that would be a good reason not to further redistribute wealth and reduce economic inequality.

Well, you have to distinguish between the national and the local levels.
On the national level, the Republicans are the party of corruption, and the Democrats are the party of incompetence.
But on the local level, it's the other way around!

I think Mike Bishop is clear proof that the MIGOP is both corrupt and incompetent.

I think Mike Bishop is clear proof that the MIGOP is both corrupt and incompetent.

I would venture the same for the CA republicans. Almost all of them are wingnut idiots.

I would venture the same for the CA republicans. Almost all of them are wingnut idiots.

Of course, the MDP isn't much better. Both parties have been engaging in obstructionist partisan dickwaving for the last 6 years while Michigan is falling apart around them.

Of course, the MDP isn't much better. Both parties have been engaging in obstructionist partisan dickwaving for the last 6 years while Michigan is falling apart around them.

solving problems, how quaint.

There is no real difference. Two puppets, one puppeteer. Power and money serve power and money.

Okay. The republicans and democrats are very similar despite all the garbage they spew about socialist this fascist that. Go to Germany or Austria and parties who's ideologies would make us shit ourselves if they ever set foot in the house of representatives exist.

Growing up my grandfather had always said that democrats were "for the people" while republicans were "for their friends", which when I was a child seemed pretty simple to figure out who was a good guy and who was a bad guy.

Today my 7 year old has explained to me that republicans tell you what you can do with your body, while democrats tell you what you're allowed to do with your money (I simplified her explanation of course)

Do you agree or disagree with either of these characterizations? How would you define each of the parties in 20 words or less?

in before complaining about US centric threads

actually, it kinda seems that way to me. over here we commonly feel that 'freedom' is a lack of restrictions on one's social and personal liberties. whereas economic liberty is often seen as less important to social freedoms. with you in the US, it appears (from an ignorant outsider's pov) to be the other way round. it has confused me - and others - in the past when republicans speak of protecting freedoms while being, stereotypically, against gay rights, for example. the democrats offer more like the kind of mix of socioeconomic freedoms we are used to in most of western europe, i believe, which might be a reason why so many europeans don't get on well with Bush and support(ed) Clinton and now Obama.

i think your little girl is very smart at cutting through the BS ;)

though, of course, my point is about party doctrine and stance... in reality, i'm sure it does boil down to power and money

The Democrats say they're "for the people". They lie.
The Republicans say they're for "small government". I think I see a pattern here.

Between Republican and Democrat.......doesn't matter to me. I had a somewhat similar saying that my grandfather always told me "Democrats are for the poor and Republicans are for the rich."

To me it doesn't really matter. I'll vote for weather it be for the white house or local someone who I would believe would do a better job not on the basis of there party much like my grandfather used to do with democrats.

Do you agree or disagree with either of these characterizations? How would you define each of the parties in 20 words or less?
in before complaining about US centric threads

Waste of time, money, and valuable oxygen.

That's both...

Seems to me, as a non American, that the Republicans are a party that favours the interests of business and the military and that Democrats favour things like social issues, health and education etc..

Seems to me, as a non American, that the Republicans are a party that favours the interests of business and the military and that Democrats favour things like social issues, health and education etc..

They both say different things, but do the same things. Unless someone from another party tries to do what they want to do.. then they adamantly oppose it.

Growing up my grandfather had always said that democrats were "for the people" while republicans were "for their friends", which when I was a child seemed pretty simple to figure out who was a good guy and who was a bad guy.

Today my 7 year old has explained to me that republicans tell you what you can do with your body, while democrats tell you what you're allowed to do with your money (I simplified her explanation of course)

Do you agree or disagree with either of these characterizations? How would you define each of the parties in 20 words or less?

in before complaining about US centric threads

Republicans are for human rights and the economy. Democrats are for welfare, higher taxes, and the environment.

They both say different things, but do the same things. Unless someone from another party tries to do what they want to do.. then they adamantly oppose it.


Sadly that is the truth. Both parties will tell us what we want to hear, and once they are in office, they forget about us. They don't care about the people, just to keep the power that they have.

Democrats help those who have nothing.

Republicans help those who have everything.

Wait, 7-year-old? I don't even remember 6. When did this happen?

Oh, and something about 8.3 and 8.5, can't remember exactly.

Republicans: The Optimates of today, Republicans help the crafty, the strong, the rich, and the positions those abilities have brought. They tend to support the way things are and were, because it accommodates wealth.

Democrats: The Populares of today, Democrats help the weak, the lame, and the poor, and attempt to aid those who cannot escape these categories do due lack of ability. Democrats tend to support change, as the old system has not brought prosperity to the exploited inept.

politicians are the SUVS of humanity. They suck money, time, and resource and, while they make some progress with it, most of it is spewed back in the form of noxious gases. but for some reason people keep buying them!

Wait, 7-year-old? I don't even remember 6. When did this happen?
She was born July 2001......the younger one is 5, that might be the reason you are confused.

She was born July 2001......the younger one is 5, that might be the reason you are confused.

I could've swore they were 3 and 5 last year...Did you just stop referring to their ages for an entire year?

I could've swore they were 3 and 5 last year...Did you just stop referring to their ages for an entire year?

Yeah, I did. I think I talk about them too much. Except I'm with them 24/7 and they say hilarious stuff....so yeah.

Growing up my grandfather had always said that democrats were "for the people" while republicans were "for their friends", which when I was a child seemed pretty simple to figure out who was a good guy and who was a bad guy.

Today my 7 year old has explained to me that republicans tell you what you can do with your body, while democrats tell you what you're allowed to do with your money (I simplified her explanation of course)

Do you agree or disagree with either of these characterizations? How would you define each of the parties in 20 words or less?

in before complaining about US centric threads
Republican politicians are only interested in their own power and will bankrupt the nation trying to preserve it.
Democratic politicians are only interested in their own power and will bankrupt the nation trying to preserve it.
Voters from both parties are stupid enough to keep re-electing the vast majority of them.
We desperately need a third party to take over the majority until they become corrupted.

Republican politicians are only interested in their own power and will bankrupt the nation trying to preserve it.
Democratic politicians are only interested in their own power and will bankrupt the nation trying to preserve it.
Voters from both parties are stupid enough to keep re-electing the vast majority of them.
We desperately need a third party to take over the majority until they become corrupted.

It won't happen in America, because too many people are too content with the illusion of status quo, and too few people are actually willing to think outside the box.

Think how likely it is that one of the socialistic of communist parties will get decent representation at a national level... pretty much not going to happen. The average American voter is interested in more-of-the-same. Maybe with a slightly different colour flag, but that's about it.

It won't happen in America, because too many people are too content with the illusion of status quo, and too few people are actually willing to think outside the box.
Think how likely it is that one of the socialistic of communist parties will get decent representation at a national level... pretty much not going to happen. The average American voter is interested in more-of-the-same. Maybe with a slightly different colour flag, but that's about it.
It's not that Americans are beguiled by an illusion any more than other people; it's that there is no concept of class consciousness. Sure, people realize that some people are richer than they are and sometimes resent that fact, but I don't know anyone who thinks of himself as "working class." All nations have their own national myths, and the claim we live in an egalitarian society is one of the US's.

It's not that Americans are beguiled by an illusion any more than other people; it's that there is no concept of class consciousness. Sure, people realize that some people are richer than they are and sometimes resent that fact, but I don't know anyone who thinks of himself as "working class." All nations have their own national myths, and the claim we live in an egalitarian society is one of the US's.

I wasn't necessarily saying that Americans are 'beguiled by an illusion any more than other people'... just that the persistent illusion of status quo, here, satisfies a lot of people.

They might complain about the flavour of the current regime, but... ultimately, they're pretty content. Two rightwing parties, one slightly more rightwing than the other - and no REAL credible alternatives... and no real DEMAND for credible alternatives.

They might complain about the flavour of the current regime, but... ultimately, they're pretty content. Two rightwing parties, one slightly more rightwing than the other - and no REAL credible alternatives... and no real DEMAND for credible alternatives.
I think that's because most have reason to be pretty content. Socialism, just to use an example of an alternative, is appealing to many people on an intellectual or even moral level. But unless a large group of people thinks they will personally benefit from it, they really have no reason to support something else.

Growing up my grandfather had always said that democrats were "for the people" while republicans were "for their friends", which when I was a child seemed pretty simple to figure out who was a good guy and who was a bad guy.

Today my 7 year old has explained to me that republicans tell you what you can do with your body, while democrats tell you what you're allowed to do with your money (I simplified her explanation of course)

Do you agree or disagree with either of these characterizations? How would you define each of the parties in 20 words or less?

in before complaining about US centric threads

Republicans believe the best way to build an economy is from the top (crown) down (the base).

Democrats think it's better to build from the bottom/middle.

Republicans are for human rights and the economy. Democrats are for welfare, higher taxes, and the environment.

Human rights such as health care, women's rights, and gay rights of course. Oops.

I would say that, in general it goes like this:

Republicans:

Realists:The ones who see the world as it is, with the faults in the system but who try to capitalize (no pun intended) off it anyway. They work with what we have to produce real results, instead of what we may have in the future. They realize that this is the best system created, and for all it's faults, it's the best to keep what we have because under it we have progressed recently as a society in ways that are historically, very fast. They look at situations as win-lose and strive for that win...usually compromise is undesirable because they feel that they cannot get enough sucess out meeting half way. It's usually us vs. them in the sense that if we don't put the 100% in, another nation/group/rival will and outcompete us. Life is constant competition. (I'm thinking alot about the way they see the world, capitalism and foreign policy here). They vote on economics (low taxes) and foreign policy (hawkish) and make up a large portion of our business (management) and or military voters and people who are pro-business pro-military.

Religous: Believe we must protect the moral compass of the nation and keep it unchanged (or with minor updates) in response to the percieved "culture war" being waged internally in our nation. They vote on social issues (abortion, prayer, religious display and gay marriage).

Nationalist: Believe that this nation has, over the course of it's history, grown up into something unique. Taking the most progressive ideas of the European Enlightenment and forming them into a government and nation, our national-style has influenced the world and has provided the foundation for the most powerful, sucessful and free nation in the world. Literally, the land of the opportunity. Nationalists believe that other nations, people and cultures don't share the same ideas and feel that our national culture is threatend by these people when they come in the form of a wave of mass-immigration that is very difficult to integrate or in the form of illegal immigration who are impossible to integrate. Nationalists usually are not for closed borders but rather reduced immigration to a controlable steam that can be integrated and for no illegal immigration. They vote on cultural issues (Immigration, Language, Flag Burning, Illegal Immigration).

Granted, Republicans can be members of 1 of these groups or all of these groups.

Naturally, there are other minor groups (Cubans opposing Castro, for example) but I felt these were the largest and best examples.

Democrats:


Union members: Union members and Unions in general vote democrat and are democrat institutions because the democrat party (in line with the views of union members) is the party of the worker. The Democrat party stands up for the laborer, teacher, driver, ect at the expense of the employer. The Democrat party apeals to these groups because they strive for effectual change in these people's lives, through better working hours, wage increase or by demanding more benefits.
They vote on localish to national economic issues (taxes, salaries, workers rights) that are directed towards them as individual workers, laborers and union members.

Socialistic People: Those who wish for the enlargement of the government to cover what they feel are people's needs and the (minimal to extreme) ridistribution of wealth to (minimally or greatly) reduce income inequality. Whether that would be enlarging government to cover healthcare, voting in more taxes to expand the powers of government or simply taxing the wealthier to support their socially minded causes. These people generally like government and belive it to be a machine of good that should work for the general betterment of it's people by covering their human needs and helping them. (Some people simply in terms of great need while others believe in constant help and welfare-security).
These people vote on economic issues that effect the community and the nation. (Welfare/ Wealth Redistribution/ Creating Government Services/ Funding Existing Government Services/ Taxes / Healthcare/ Education)

Minorities: Minorities are difficult to sumarize because they can make up any of these various groups and thus, have their own agendas. However, it is still factual that minorities hugely vote Democrat due to their (recent) historical relationship with the Democrat Party ("Clinton was the first Black President") and their (recent) distrust of the Republican Party, whom they see as doing nothing to represent their needs and agendas. The Democrat Party largely domiantes the inner cities where much of 'Minority-America' lives and has virtually no competition with the Republican Party. They tend to vote on civil rights issues, wealth redistribution and for the enlargement and funding of government services.

Granted, Democrats can be either 1 of these groups or all 3 of these groups. Also, there are naturally other smaller groups (enviornmentalists, for example) but I felt these were the largest and best examples.

Human rights such as health care, women's rights, and gay rights of course. Oops.
But those positive rights are simply your opinion of rights. They are not 'rights' as 'rights' were intended.

Whether or not the government should grant them is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the Republican party still does stand for Human Rights in the sense that they are strong believers in the negative rights that our constitution cedes us.

But those positive rights are simply your opinion of rights.

Health care is the only positive right of the three.

Health care is the only positive right of the three.

Incorrect. All citizens (obviously with minor exceptions...for example felons) already have the right to marry. It is a choice or chemical imbalence (doesn't matter, for sake of our discussion) that homosexuals feel the need to ask the government to grant them the right to do something that they are perfectly free without, marry someone of the same sex. Marriage, along with Universal Suffirage and freedom of speech, are the negative rights of citizens so that the government may not restrict one from partaking in those acts. Gays, as citizens, already have those negative rights and are asking the government give them sometihng extra. An extra service. (The problem with this is that we can go back and forth all day as there are also, admittingly, a few claims as to why many negative and positive rights can be interchanged).

'Womans Rights', meant abortion, I had assumed, because he would have been foolish to list otherwise as women already have full rights as citizens. In that case you are asking for the government to give you permisson to kill/terminate/abort something that is not you. A 'right' that you are absolutely politically, socially and economcially free without.

(I'm not anti-abortion but that's not the point).

It is a choice or chemical imbalence (doesn't matter, for sake of our discussion) that homosexuals feel the need to ask the government to grant them the right to do something that they are perfectly free without, marry someone of the same sex.

The right at stake here is equality under law. It is neither positive nor negative; it simply states, whatever positive or negative rights there are, they must apply equally to all.

Of course, you also ignore other aspects of the gay rights struggle--like repealing sodomy laws, which pitted liberals on the side of negative individual rights and conservatives against them.

'In that case you are asking for the government to give you permisson to kill/terminate/abort something that is not you.

Negative rights are always about the government (and other people generally) not interfering with certain activities.

That's the definition.

The right at stake here is equality under law. It is neither positive nor negative; it simply states, whatever positive or negative rights there are, they must apply equally to all.
As citizens able to marry as every other citizen can, they have equality. What they are looking for is an additional recognition of an ability they want from the government. Whether it should or should not be given to them is not the point here, by the way.


Of course, you also ignore other aspects of the gay rights struggle--like repealing sodomy laws, which pitted liberals on the side of negative individual rights and conservatives against them.
I could give a shit about sodomy laws. Not only has the supreme court already struck them down (in 02 or 03, can't remember), but they've hardly been enforced for decades. They are a non-issue.

]Negative rights are always about the government (and other people generally) not interfering with certain activities.

That's the definition.
Not interfering with someone owning guns, owning land, voting, speaking his mind, fair trail, ect ect....but these are about the government and YOU. Abortion brings in another person/being/thing into the picture so it violates at once that idea that this is between the government and your rights to yourself. Abortion is the act or aborting something else, you're not aborting yourself. If you had said suicide, I would have said you were correct.

As citizens able to marry as every other citizen can, they have equality.

This is a ridiculously disingenuous argument. To discriminate against same-sex relationships is inherently to discriminate against people who participate in them and desire to participate in them. To say that "equality" means allowing gays to engage in opposite-sex marriage is a perverse mockery of the term.

I could give a shit about sodomy laws.

Unfortunately, where it has been politically possible to do so, the Republican Party has taken a different stance.

Not interfering with someone owning guns, owning land, voting, speaking his mind, fair trail, ect ect....but these are about the government and YOU.

Incidentally, free speech, privacy, fair trials, due process rights, and the like are all much more under threat from the Republicans than from the Democrats.

But don't let reality interfere with your political imagination.

Abortion brings in another person/being/thing into the picture so it violates at once that idea that this is between the government and your rights to yourself.

This is precisely the argument of those who say the positive/negative distinction is arbitrary: other people are alleged to have a claim on that which the negative right protects.

As with health care, as with abortion, only in one case it is the right to external property that is in question, and in the other the right to fundamental bodily autonomy.

Republican = generally bad.

Democrat = generally good.

Anything else is said to confuse you.

:D

EDIT: Just to be fucking clear, I am joking.

I think you're giving the Democrats, especially on the local level, a little bit too much credit.

Mayor of my city used his office to try to keep his wife's booze-and-cruise (behind the wheel of a car) habit a touch on the secret side. And he's not the only one who's got similar problems in the 'bus.

Growing up my grandfather had always said that democrats were "for the people" while republicans were "for their friends", which when I was a child seemed pretty simple to figure out who was a good guy and who was a bad guy.

Today my 7 year old has explained to me that republicans tell you what you can do with your body, while democrats tell you what you're allowed to do with your money (I simplified her explanation of course)

Do you agree or disagree with either of these characterizations? How would you define each of the parties in 20 words or less?

in before complaining about US centric threads

I hope this helped:

I would say that, in general it goes like this:

Republicans:

Realists:The ones who see the world as it is, with the faults in the system but who try to capitalize (no pun intended) off it anyway. They work with what we have to produce real results, instead of what we may have in the future. They realize that this is the best system created, and for all it's faults, it's the best to keep what we have because under it we have progressed recently as a society in ways that are historically, very fast. They look at situations as win-lose and strive for that win...usually compromise is undesirable because they feel that they cannot get enough sucess out meeting half way. It's usually us vs. them in the sense that if we don't put the 100% in, another nation/group/rival will and outcompete us. Life is constant competition. (I'm thinking alot about the way they see the world, capitalism and foreign policy here). They vote on economics (low taxes) and foreign policy (hawkish) and make up a large portion of our business (management) and or military voters and people who are pro-business pro-military.

Religous: Believe we must protect the moral compass of the nation and keep it unchanged (or with minor updates) in response to the percieved "culture war" being waged internally in our nation. They vote on social issues (abortion, prayer, religious display and gay marriage).

Nationalist: Believe that this nation has, over the course of it's history, grown up into something unique. Taking the most progressive ideas of the European Enlightenment and forming them into a government and nation, our national-style has influenced the world and has provided the foundation for the most powerful, sucessful and free nation in the world. Literally, the land of the opportunity. Nationalists believe that other nations, people and cultures don't share the same ideas and feel that our national culture is threatend by these people when they come in the form of a wave of mass-immigration that is very difficult to integrate or in the form of illegal immigration who are impossible to integrate. Nationalists usually are not for closed borders but rather reduced immigration to a controlable steam that can be integrated and for no illegal immigration. They vote on cultural issues (Immigration, Language, Flag Burning, Illegal Immigration).

Granted, Republicans can be members of 1 of these groups or all of these groups.

Naturally, there are other minor groups (Cubans opposing Castro, for example) but I felt these were the largest and best examples.

Democrats:


Union members: Union members and Unions in general vote democrat and are democrat institutions because the democrat party (in line with the views of union members) is the party of the worker. The Democrat party stands up for the laborer, teacher, driver, ect at the expense of the employer. The Democrat party apeals to these groups because they strive for effectual change in these people's lives, through better working hours, wage increase or by demanding more benefits.
They vote on localish to national economic issues (taxes, salaries, workers rights) that are directed towards them as individual workers, laborers and union members.

Socialistic People: Those who wish for the enlargement of the government to cover what they feel are people's needs and the (minimal to extreme) ridistribution of wealth to (minimally or greatly) reduce income inequality. Whether that would be enlarging government to cover healthcare, voting in more taxes to expand the powers of government or simply taxing the wealthier to support their socially minded causes. These people generally like government and belive it to be a machine of good that should work for the general betterment of it's people by covering their human needs and helping them. (Some people simply in terms of great need while others believe in constant help and welfare-security).
These people vote on economic issues that effect the community and the nation. (Welfare/ Wealth Redistribution/ Creating Government Services/ Funding Existing Government Services/ Taxes / Healthcare/ Education)

Minorities: Minorities are difficult to sumarize because they can make up any of these various groups and thus, have their own agendas. However, it is still factual that minorities hugely vote Democrat due to their (recent) historical relationship with the Democrat Party ("Clinton was the first Black President") and their (recent) distrust of the Republican Party, whom they see as doing nothing to represent their needs and agendas. The Democrat Party largely domiantes the inner cities where much of 'Minority-America' lives and has virtually no competition with the Republican Party. They tend to vote on civil rights issues, wealth redistribution and for the enlargement and funding of government services.

Granted, Democrats can be either 1 of these groups or all 3 of these groups. Also, there are naturally other smaller groups (enviornmentalists, for example) but I felt these were the largest and best examples.

As citizens able to marry as every other citizen can, they have equality.

Horseshit, and you know it.

Only half the population are allowed to marry women. The other half are only allowed to marry men.

Whichever way you look at it, that's discriminatory.

But those positive rights are simply your opinion of rights. They are not 'rights' as 'rights' were intended.

Whether or not the government should grant them is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the Republican party still does stand for Human Rights in the sense that they are strong believers in the negative rights that our constitution cedes us.

WTF are "rights" as "'rights' were intended"?

Regardless, the Constitution rather clearly protects numerous negative AND numerous positive rights, so your point is rather moot.

you... managed to miss the message there... I'm actually kind of impressed. :p

the parties are the same, it's the names that are different.

At one point in time, you would swear that the Republican Party was actually the Democrats.

Fighting for Equal rights for minorities,
Fighting to end segregation,
looking out for the person and not the big companies...
true. . .true . . .lol :P