What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans and what are the similarities?

Albion said:

They never before went up as they did under Obama who increased the national debt more than all the previous presidents.

Click to expand...

The so-called 700 billion dollar bailout occurred under Bush. The figure was a lie as was the claim that Iraq would only cost 80 billion.

Iraq has so far cost over 8 trillion (three times the national budget in it's entirety during Bush's presidency) and the so-called 700 billion dollar bailout was in actuality 19 trillion, 11 of which the federal reserve cannot account for (or won't account for).

The parties worship the central bank which isn't a government entity but is a private corporation which lends our own money to us at interest.

The only person in politics who raised the issue and called for an end to the Federal Reserve was Ron Paul. We should have listened to him. All of this war and deficit spending and bankruptcy is sourced at that one entity. We need to abolish the Fed and go back to sound money.

Al Touthentop said:

The so-called 700 billion dollar bailout occurred under Bush. The figure was a lie as was the claim that Iraq would only cost 80 billion.

Iraq has so far cost over 8 trillion (three times the national budget in it's entirety during Bush's presidency) and the so-called 700 billion dollar bailout was in actuality 19 trillion, 11 of which the federal reserve cannot account for (or won't account for).

The parties worship the central bank which isn't a government entity but is a private corporation which lends our own money to us at interest.

The only person in politics who raised the issue and called for an end to the Federal Reserve was Ron Paul. We should have listened to him. All of this war and deficit spending and bankruptcy is sourced at that one entity. We need to abolish the Fed and go back to sound money.

Click to expand...

Ron Paul is a crank and these ideas about "sound money" or the gold standard have no bearing in reality.

stevil said:

There was no witch hunt designed to take Trump down.

Click to expand...

lol

stevil said:

he Special Council investigation was on Russia and Trump campaign members. It never focused on Trump and had a rule that it wasn't going to indict a sitting president,

Click to expand...

Never focused on Trump throughout this? Just barbecue they made some decisions well after the witch hunt began, doesn't mean there was no witch hunt.

I'm sorry, I no longer bother to arue with someone who I feel is incapable of dealing with reality, not only is it fruitless... it's cruel, as well.

Kenny'sID said:

Never focused on Trump throughout this? Just barbecue they made some decisions well after the witch hunt began, doesn't mean there was no witch hunt.

I'm sorry, I no longer bother to arue with someone who I feel is incapable of dealing with reality, not only is it fruitless... it's cruel, as well.

Click to expand...

You continue to use loaded terms such as "witchhunt" rather than discuss from a factual perspective and for some reason all your focus is based on the person "Donald Trump" you seem to ignore the fact that the Special Council investigation was about Russians and Trump Campaign members, and also seem to ignore the fact that the FISA warrant was about Carter Page and ignore the fact that the Justice Department cannot indict the sitting president.

It's almost beyond belief how many facts you need to ignore in order to shape your vision of "reality"

iluvatar5150 said:

Ron Paul is a crank and these ideas about "sound money" or the gold standard have no bearing in reality.

Click to expand...

Right. Start your education by reading the book, 'The Creature from Jekyll Island. The Federal Reserve has already admitted that it caused the great depression. Of course, Von Mises won a Nobel prize for predicting that its actions would do just that and today, people call anyone who subscribes to his economic theories a "crank."

Your ad hominem though has nullified any credibility your argument may have had.

Al Touthentop said:

Right. Start your education by reading the book, 'The Creature from Jekyll Island. The Federal Reserve has already admitted that it caused the great depression.

Click to expand...

assaming that that statement is true...

And doctors killed James Garfield. Does that mean we discard the medical profession?

We know a lot more about monetary policy today than we did 90 years ago.

Of course, Von Mises won a Nobel prize

Click to expand...

No, he didn't.
List of Nobel Memorial Prize laureates in Economics - Wikipedia

for predicting that its actions would do just that

Click to expand...

Where did he predict that?

and today, people call anyone who subscribes to his economic theories a "crank."

Click to expand...

Seems I'm not alone:
Ludwig von Mises - Wikipedia

Your ad hominem though has nullified any credibility your argument may have had.

Click to expand...

What does it do to your argument when you get basic factual errors wrong?

iluvatar5150 said:

assaming that that statement is true...

And doctors killed James Garfield. Does that mean we discard the medical profession?

We know a lot more about monetary policy today than we did 90 years ago.

Click to expand...

Yet we still do the same things....

Study of Great Depression shapes Bernanke's views

Ben Bernanke admits the fed caused the depression.

No, he didn't.
List of Nobel Memorial Prize laureates in Economics - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

It was Fredrick Hayek - a Mises student. Mises did predict the depression.

Where did he predict that?

Click to expand...

The Prophet of the Great Depression | Frank Shostak

"The Causes of the Economic Crisis is a collection of articles on the business cycle, money, and exchange rates by Ludwig von Mises that appeared between 1919 and 1946. Here we have the evidence that the master economist foresaw and warned against the breakdown of the German mark, as well as the market crash of 1929 and the depression that followed."

Seems I'm not alone:
Ludwig von Mises - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

In what?

What does it do to your argument when you get basic factual errors wrong?

Click to expand...

Nothing really. I made an error but it doesn't make your ad hominem anything less than proof that you have no argument.

stevil said:

You continue to use loaded terms such as "witchhunt" rather than discuss from a factual perspective….

Click to expand...

There's no need to become agitated over someone's use of this term.

It's a commonly-heard term, it's been in the news quite apart from what anyone here on CF has chosen to say, and it's a lot quicker than typing out something like "the politicians who decided, from election day in 2016 forward, to do whatever they could do in order to get the winner of that election out of the White House, whether that was to find something on which to impeach and convict him, to destroy his reputation by endless slanders, to paralyze Congress, and/or otherwise ruin his time in office."

Albion said:

There's no need to become agitated over someone's use of this term.

It's a commonly-heard term, it's been in the news quite apart from what anyone here on CF has chosen to say, and it's a lot quicker than typing out something like "the politicians who decided, from election day in 2016 forward, to do whatever they could do in order to get the winner of that election out of the White House, whether that was to find something on which to impeach and convict him, to destroy his reputation by endless slanders, to paralyze Congress, and/or otherwise ruin his time in office."

Click to expand...

It's a right wing conspiracy which has no factual basis and falls apart under just a little scrutiny.

You lump "the politicians" together. But they are all different. Pelosi for example wasn't willing to try to impeach Trump even when it was clear in Mueller's report that Trump had actively obstructed justice.
The Special investigation was instigated by Rossenstien who isn't in league with Obama or the secrete "Deep State". The FBI started Operation Cross Fire because they had good reason to do so. Barrs "investigate the investigators" concluded that there was good reason to start this investigation.
The FISA warrant was an attempt to surveil Carter Page, not Donald Trump. The issues in the application for the warrant were due to over eager investigators and not due to political bias as was concluded by the "investigate the investigators" investigation.

stevil said:

It's a right wing conspiracy which has no factual basis and falls apart under just a little scrutiny.

Click to expand...

There wasn't a hint of conspiracy theorizing in anything I wrote there.

The people out to destroy Trump from the day he won the election made not a smidgen of a secret about their plans. They instead seemed to think they could draw strength from laying it all right out in the open--again and again and again.

Albion said:

There wasn't a hint of conspiracy theorizing in anything I wrote there.

The people out to destroy Trump from the day he won the election made not a smidgen of a secret about their plans. They instead seemed to think they could draw strength from laying it all right out in the open--again and again and again.

Click to expand...

Your conspiracy has various people from media to democrats to republicans to cia and fbi officials to ambassadors etc all coordinating together is an attempt to get rid of Trump (because, he isn't part of a secret establishment society).

You have no evidence at all of this. For example, no evidence that Rossenstien is a member of this secret society or that he is chummy with Obama and taking secret orders from him

stevil said:

Your conspiracy has...

Click to expand...

So, there we go again. What a shame to have
compromised your post, beginning with the very first words.

To the OP... Difference from what I see.

Pathos (appeal to emotion) is a way of convincing an audience of an argument by creating an emotional response to an impassioned plea or a convincing story.
Democrats ^^^

Logos (appeal to logic) is a way of persuading an audience with reason, using facts and figures.
Republicans ^^^

Ethos (sometimes called an appeal to ethics), then, is used as a means of convincing an audience via the authority or credibility of the persuader, be it a notable or experienced figure in the field or even a popular celebrity.

(Add on to ethos). A notable can be a document or text we got to read... Boring. Experienced figure might be a lawyer, lobbyist or economist also boring ,lol, yet important to Logos.

Both use Ethos to convince .

The above is not absolute, as both can dip into the area each party uses the most .

Opinion. Shock value is a nice commodity as our attention span (by design) to not dig for facts for ourselves puts these at war (and/or ourselves), Trust vs Facts, wherein trust relies on pathos from the individual as the facts rely on logos. Loyalty to party is a massive pathos (by design) to separate the people (US) to argue this hypothetical... My kid got caught stealing a candy bar on video while my kid is running for school president . Because I have invested my loyalty to party and kid, he can do no wrong, so I "say" (using pathos to ethos), this is a set up by my kids running mate .
This proclamation instantly separates right vs wrong by applying politics to it.

FanthatSpark said:

To the OP... Difference from what I see.

Pathos (appeal to emotion) is a way of convincing an audience of an argument by creating an emotional response to an impassioned plea or a convincing story.
Democrats ^^^

Logos (appeal to logic) is a way of persuading an audience with reason, using facts and figures.
Republicans ^^^

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the story Republicans like to tell themselves, but irrational fear of socialism, Muslims, the deep state, and LGBTQ rights; global warming denialism; birtherism; wacky, long-debunked economic theories; and blind fealty to an orange-tinted narcissistic crook tell a different story. Heck, how many times in this very thread have I had to correct Republicans about "facts and figures"?

iluvatar5150 said:

Yeah, that's the story Republicans like to tell themselves, but irrational fear of socialism, Muslims, the deep state, and LGBTQ rights; global warming denialism; birtherism; wacky, long-debunked economic theories; and blind fealty to an orange-tinted crook tell a different story. Heck, how many times in this very thread have I had to correct Republicans about "facts and figures"?

Click to expand...

The whole reasoning for The Wall, was all about an emotional appeal.
Mexicans are rapists and murderers, Muslim terrorists are coming over the southern boarder, the caravan is a mass invasion, blah, blah...

When you get to the real problem, drugs, illegals etc, there are better methods of addressing those than building a very large expensive wall. But the Republicans didn't want to look at it from facts and logic.

stevil said:

The whole reasoning for The Wall, was all about an emotional appeal.
Mexicans are rapists and murderers, Muslim terrorists are coming over the southern boarder, the caravan is a mass invasion, blah, blah...

When you get to the real problem, drugs, illegals etc, there are better methods of addressing those than building a very large expensive wall. But the Republicans didn't want to look at it from facts and logic.

Click to expand...

Republicans used to be at least moderately on board with certain environmental policies and Obamacare-style health insurance plans with government mandates (that's what Romneycare was, after all), but it was only once those policies got associated with Democrats that their lizard brains kicked in and realized that it was more important to "win" by opposing the other guys than it was to take up the mantle of ideas that are based in reality.

stevil said:

The whole reasoning for The Wall, was all about an emotional appeal.
Mexicans are rapists and murderers,...

Click to expand...

He said there are rapists among the illegal immigrants, a fact that is obviously true and a reason for wanting to have a workable system by which refugees and criminals looking for an easy mark in the USA can be kept separate.

Albion said:

He said there are rapists among the illegal immigrants, a fact that is obviously true and a reason for wanting to have a workable system by which refugees and criminals looking for an easy mark in the USA can be kept separate.

Click to expand...

All countries should vet their immigrants. For sure. Amongst all the reasonable folk, some people are problematic, from all immigrants from all countries.

In Trump's speech he says "they" aren't sending their best people. Who does he think is orchestrating immagrants from Mexico? He characterises them as mostly drug dealers and rapists and says "some, I assume are good people".
Only some, which implies most aren't???