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

[iluvatar5150]

The following is on conditions since the election.

Democrats say Republicans are bad and Republicans generally ignore them because they are not nearly as insecure as Democrats.

I guess that’s why Republicans cry about the big bad media, and the deep state, and all their terrible persecutors - because they’re so secure in themselves.

I have little doubt the Republicans would have taken a win by Hillary with a lot more class than the Democrats have...a whole lot more.

What do Republicans have in common with Dems? Nothing...thank goodness.

Republicans chased Obama with a racist conspiracy theory and Trump is arguably the most classless national politician we’ve had in decades. What on earth gives you the impression that Republicans would have handled things better?

 

[stevil]

I'm not qualified to answer this question.
But I have been casting my eye towards USA in the past 3 years.

My perception is this.

Democrats are typically socially liberal (believe in the right for individuals to make their own decisions rather than government legislate decisions for them) and consider it a social responsibility for government to provide or subsidise (or provide a safety net for) some of the basic needs such as food, health, education, housing.
Democrats are typically empathetic to the plight of the "have nots" and take a consultative approach to solutions. Democrats see USA as needing to be a conscientious member of the World society, and like to consult and compromise in order to peacefully participate and influence and lead. Democrats recognise USA as being responsible with regards to world peace, world economies and world ecology and will balance the need for local success as well as participating responsibly as part of the World.
They believe Republicans are heartless, and crazy religious and controlling. They are embarrassed with a Republican president and their subjugation of minorities, their pandering to the rich and their propensity to get into wars and international conflict.

Republicans are socially conservative (believe that individuals should behave a certain way and government has the responsibility to restrict the behaviours of individuals). They believe all Americans should be patriotic and that USA is the best country ever. Most are Christians and believe America was built on Christian values and should be declared a Christian country. They fear cultural change (fear immigration), they fear removal of Christian traditions, they want all people to adhere to Christian standards especially with regards to sex and marriage and want to legislate on this. They care for other "people" upto the point where "people" are born, then it is "every man for himself". They don't want to pay taxes, they don't want to be forced to pay for food, healthcare, schooling or healthcare for others. They would rather everyone fend for themselves.
They are very strong willed and want USA to use its military and economic dominance to force other countries to comply to their will. Compromise is a weakness, respect of other countries is a weakness. They believe USA can go it alone, and believe they shouldn't give international aid, shouldn't support refugees. They believe Guns is their right and it shows them how great USA is that every man, woman and child can have whatever gun they please. They believe Democrats are weak and squander USA's dominant position. They are embarrassed by Democrat presidents and their propensity to bow and kowtow to the whims of other countries and religions. They feel in general society is against them, the world is against them, they feel repressed and belittled but they consider themselves smarter than everyone else, better than everyone else.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I had the same impression when I lived in England.

A few months after arriving I realized I had entirely misunderstood what the term 'Liberal' means over here, and from there I went on to discover that I had misunderstood pretty well every term, they've all been twisted about in peculiar ways.

 

[jgarden]

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

The current Republican Party is more analogous to a personality "cult," than a political party, given that it has jettisoned the core beliefs that it had traditionally espoused, and dedicated itself to justifying the pronouncements/tweets of just one individual!

How else could one explain their unswerving loyalty to a President who repeatedly assured them that Mexico would pay for a southern WALL, even after he proceeded to shut down the federal government for 35 days, after the Democrats chose to take him at his word?

 

[MorkandMindy]

Since you have written so much I feel my short response was discourteous so I'll expand it a bit, just a bit because it is my bedtime here

Colors. Here theoretically blue means left, perhaps even revolutionary, and red means conservative.

Left - other countries have a party with allegiance to the lower income population and one with allegiance to the higher incomes which is the party to the Right. Here the Democratic Party has allegiance to the middle class and usually no interest in the working class, Hillary for example was with Barack Obama working on TPP to make it easier for Asia to flood the US market with manufactured goods and shut down US manufacturing entirely.

Donald Trump took the opportunity to support US manufacturing and thereby gained the support of the lower class, so Hillary the Democratic candidate was well to the Right of the Republican candidate who many assumed was further to the Right but wasn't.

In past I posted threads to try to get some agreement on terminology and generally got no responses at all. So Left is often used as a synonym for 'progressive' and an actually progressive President like Ronald Reagan who turned the economy upside down is referred to as 'conservative'. Now try to make sense of that.

I don't do that anymore. I come here primarily to give my mind something to do other than worry and I think that is most likely the same with others. We all like a good debate even if we don't understand what anyone else is saying, never get angry, most likely the person saying the opposite of you is mainly in agreement.

 

[jgarden]

Since you have written so much I feel my short response was discourteous so I'll expand it a bit, just a bit because it is my bedtime here

Colors. Here theoretically blue means left, perhaps even revolutionary, and red means conservative.

Left - other countries have a party with allegiance to the lower income population and one with allegiance to the higher incomes which is the party to the Right. Here the Democratic Party has allegiance to the middle class and usually no interest in the working class, Hillary for example was with Barack Obama working on TPP to make it easier for Asia to flood the US market with manufactured goods and shut down US manufacturing entirely.

Donald Trump took the opportunity to support US manufacturing and thereby gained the support of the lower class, so Hillary the Democratic candidate was well to the Right of the Republican candidate who many assumed was further to the Right but wasn't.

In past I posted threads to try to get some agreement on terminology and generally got no responses at all. So Left is often used as a synonym for 'progressive' and an actually progressive President like Ronald Reagan who turned the economy upside down is referred to as 'conservative'. Now try to make sense of that.

I don't do that anymore. I come here primarily to give my mind something to do other than worry and I think that is most likely the same with others. We all like a good debate even if we don't understand what anyone else is saying.

Just how does a $1 trillion tax cut for the wealthy, financed with borrowed money that the rest of us are responsible to repay, benefit the working and/or the middle classes - while America continues to enjoy a "bull" market, there is little evidence to suggest that based on Republican "voodoo" economics, these benefits have "trickled" down into the paychecks of the average American!

 

[com7fy8]

I have been told that Democrats are about the people.

Republicans are said to be about institutions, including big businesses.

But the little ones can need the bigger institutions. So, we need to take care of the institutions which can be good for the little people.

You might need government, for example, so there is authority to manage military to protect the people.

And an educational institution might be big, but needed in order to help educate and train people.

So, there are big things which can be good for the people.

So, if my ideas of Republican and Democrat are reasonable, each can complement the other . . . instead of competing and conflicting.

 

[stevil]

So, if my ideas of Republican and Democrat are reasonable, each can complement the other . . . instead of competing and conflicting.

If we consider social vs commercialism (Look after the people vs look after the prosperity of business).
If you just cater to people and perhaps focus on the "have nots" you get into a society of dependants wanting handouts and not seeing any benefit to apply themselves.

If you just cater to businesses you end up with some big successes hiring lots of people, providing work, skills and income but also you have many people being poor and destitute, dying on the streets, being turned away from health care, not able to put their children through schools.You get a class system, where the haves can afford the best schools, they go to private schools so that they can meet other rich people and get connections and avoid poor people, they join expensive sports and clubs so they can keep hubnubbing with the rich and build more connections. They get the jobs, they get preferencial treatment with their expensive lawyers and council or government connections. Poor families end up with no way out of poverty. Overtime the poor vastly outnumbering the wealthy will rebel.

Neither approach taken to the extreme will lead to a successful society, which is why in democratic countries you often get flip flops between right wing and left wing governments.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I guess that’s why Republicans cry about the big bad media, and the deep state, and all their terrible persecutors - because they’re so secure in themselves.

They are against certain media because the media was truly against them, even to the point of being completely nuts. Lets take the Witch hunt that Trump "cried over", turns out it was exactly that.

Republicans chased Obama with a racist conspiracy theory and Trump is arguably the most classless national politician we’ve had in decades. What on earth gives you the impression that Republicans would have handled things better?

That was nothing like what has been going on here since the election, not even close.

Anyone who can't see those two simple facts is not in touch with reality. What Dems have done is unprecidented.

 

[stevil]

Lets take the Witch hunt that Trump "cried over", turns out it was exactly that.

Are you talking about the Investigation into Russian interference of the 2016 presidential election and the coordination of members of the Trump campaign with this Russian interference AND the obstruction of Justice?

Who was being witch hunted?
Remember, the prosecutor stated that they wouldn't indict the sitting president. They documented evidence with regards to obstruction of justice but didn't make a determination and didn't take it to the courts.

They determined that Russia did indeed interfere and many were indicted.
They stated the Trump tower meeting that members of Trump's campaign meet with Russian officials in order to get dirt on Hilary.
They stated that Trump's campaign chair was sharing polling data with the Russians.

Also they indicted several members of Trump's campaign, as well as his personal lawyer. These guys were found guilty in court. They are convicted criminals.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Republicans only care about themselves. Democrats only care about power.

I agree with the republican thing. But Democrats try to help the poor. And Republicans don't

 

[com7fy8]

Neither approach taken to the extreme will lead to a successful society, which is why in democratic countries you often get flip flops between right wing and left wing governments.

Humans are the problem.

But it seems we all agree to keep the humans.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Just how does a $1 trillion tax cut for the wealthy, financed with borrowed money that the rest of us are responsible to repay, benefit the working and/or the middle classes - while America continues to enjoy a "bull" market, there is little evidence to suggest that based on Republican "voodoo" economics, these benefits have "trickled" down into the paychecks of the average American!

Those who run the World or more accurately, influence it as much as they can, are of course outnumbered enormously by the rest of us. They achieve a lot of things for themselves such as getting England and Australia to sell off most of their gold reserves when gold was cheap so they could buy it, and they have 'a finger in every pie'.

The tax cut might be something Donald was keen on and a lot of economists are also in favor of it, or it might have been obtained by a trick, that if he made that cut the media would stop hounding him, but I'm not sure he would fall for that, personally I thought it was the wrong thing to do and by highlighting the connection between the Republican Party and the rich and powerful they were casting it as a Right Wing party.

My guess is because the tax cuts start at 50,000 dollars a year, he might have been making a grab for the Middle Class voters, leaving the Democrats with nobody except the very rich. Putting things in balance, the very rich run the media so the Democrats most likely would stay the course they are on anyway and see the tax cuts as a cheap bribe to vote Republican.

But he did say it would be rocket fuel for the economy and I think he was hoping for that given how many times he has started a speech by talking about how much he's done for the economy.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I really did not agree with the tax cuts, the last time something so reckless was done was under idiot Reagan, with initially ambiguous results but over the longer term Reaganomics proved to be the worst thing that had happened to the US economy for a long time. Then along came Bill Clinton and then G W Bush with their huge trade losses.

That 1 Trillion cut will continue to incur costs each year so it will turn out to be a lot more, but then while all the thinking candidates are talking about simplifying and cutting costs in medical care we have the still popular Elizabeth Warren going the opposite way and proposing a 52 Trillion over 10 years increase in funding for the medical sector, now that really is barefaced bribery for all those middle class doctors, nurses and hospital administrators.

 

[Albion]

Just how does a $1 trillion tax cut for the wealthy, financed with borrowed money that the rest of us are responsible to repay, benefit the working and/or the middle classes...

I'm very Middle Class myself, and I received a tax cut.
As for the burden of repaying the borrowed money, the previous administration ran the debt up by almost 10 times as much as this one has done so far. Did I miss your post about how much you opposed that turn of events?? Apparently so.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Are you talking about the Investigation into Russian interference of the 2016 presidential election and the coordination of members of the Trump campaign with this Russian interference AND the obstruction of Justice?

Who was being witch hunted?
Remember, the prosecutor stated that they wouldn't indict the sitting president. They documented evidence with regards to obstruction of justice but didn't make a determination and didn't take it to the courts.

They determined that Russia did indeed interfere and many were indicted.
They stated the Trump tower meeting that members of Trump's campaign meet with Russian officials in order to get dirt on Hilary.
They stated that Trump's campaign chair was sharing polling data with the Russians.

Also they indicted several members of Trump's campaign, as well as his personal lawyer. These guys were found guilty in court. They are convicted criminals.

Was Trump guilty as charged?

Please don't change the subject, we are talking about Trump here, so if you'll please repost and leave out anything that confuses/gets in the way of the issue, it would be greatly appreciated.

If you want to talk about other problems brought aboiut by the investigation, that's fine, start a thread on it, I might even join in, and I could even start a thread on criminal behavior on the democrats side, I mean there all kinds of things we could do, but there's a time and place for everything. For now...The witch hunt designed to take "Trump" down, and how it turned out to be just that, that is the subject.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm very Middle Class myself, and I received a tax cut.
As for the burden of repaying the borrowed money, the previous administration ran the debt up by almost 10 times as much as this one has done so far. Did I miss your post about how much you opposed that turn of events?? Apparently so.

<edit, fixing>

 

[Halbhh]

Where I differ with you is on the foreigners. First, your using biblical commands for the nation-state of Israel and trying to extrapolate those commands to the United States.

matthew 7:12 see is for you and me right now, today, and forever.

If we allow everyone who wanted to be here, offering them free public education, food stamps, housing and medical care, we would cease to be a nation in a day because it would absolutely break us.

This is what is called a "political talking point" -- it's something made up by political strategists to trick people and trigger their fears. If we really believed this talking point, then it would seem the U.S. must have collapsed over and over in the last 40 years...with huge immigration happening during those 40 years.

But in reality what has happened is the U.S. economy, with that huge immigration, has been the strongest in all the world. See? So, the talking point above isn't true, as proven by actual outcome of strong economic growth over those 40 years.

At our current 20 trillion dollar debt, which will cost in excess of $60,000.00 from every man, woman and child who lives here to pay off, we simply can't afford to take in just anyone anymore.

I agree that is a real problem, and it has come from lowering taxes on the ultra rich and very rich over and over while also increasing military spending.

To put U.S. military spending in context, it is useful to compare what it spends to that of others. In fiscal 2018, the Defense Department’s budget of $649 billion — not even counting the contingency fund — was larger than the combined spending of the next seven largest militaries: $609 billion (China, Saudi Arabia, India, France, Russia, UK, Germany).

As large as the DOD budget is, the total amount spent by the United States on national security is actually much higher. The largest chunk outside DOD is spent by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which cares for former troops injured in past conflicts and funds the pensions of military retirees. The VA spent $201 billion in 2019, topping $200 million for the first time but not the last; the 2020 request was $220.2 billion. Adding the VA’s budget brings total national-security spending to $887 billion.
Why Does the US Spend So Much on Defense?

 

[Kenny'sID]

This is directed at no one in particular, and if the point hasn't already been made, we need to get our own backyard straightened out before we try to fix other countries problems, as much as possible anyway.

I'm all for helping others like with the immigration issue, but I think we can do a much better job at that once the US gets stronger. As it is, it's like using assets that are needed to keep a business afloat, in order to help others, and we keep doing that, the business goes down or never thrives and no one gets any significant help, if any at all should the business fail. Very simple concept.

I honestly don't think it will that that long with the present regime.

 

[Hazelelponi]

matthew 7:12 see is for you and me right now, today, and forever.



This is what is called a "political talking point" -- it's something made up by political strategists to trick people and trigger their fears. If we really believed this talking point, then it would seem the U.S. must have collapsed over and over in the last 40 years...with huge immigration happening during those 40 years.

But in reality what has happened is the U.S. economy, with that huge immigration, has been the strongest in all the world. See? So, the talking point above isn't true, as proven by actual outcome of strong economic growth over those 40 years.


I agree that is a real problem, and it has come from lowering taxes on the ultra rich and very rich over and over while also increasing military spending.

To put U.S. military spending in context, it is useful to compare what it spends to that of others. In fiscal 2018, the Defense Department’s budget of $649 billion — not even counting the contingency fund — was larger than the combined spending of the next seven largest militaries: $609 billion (China, Saudi Arabia, India, France, Russia, UK, Germany).

As large as the DOD budget is, the total amount spent by the United States on national security is actually much higher. The largest chunk outside DOD is spent by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which cares for former troops injured in past conflicts and funds the pensions of military retirees. The VA spent $201 billion in 2019, topping $200 million for the first time but not the last; the 2020 request was $220.2 billion. Adding the VA’s budget brings total national-security spending to $887 billion.
Why Does the US Spend So Much on Defense?

I didn't join in this thread for a protracted debate on why I stand where I stand politically. I thought the intention of this thread was to see where the sameness might lie between voters of the different parties, and what points of agreement may be..

If I thought this was a attack everyone on the right thread I would have stayed away..

Good day. I'll keep in mind that threads like this are just another reason and excuse to attack everyone we don't agree with and stay my distance in the first place if not looking to debate.

This kind of stuff is sickening anymore. I'll make it easy. Your on ignore.

Have fun hating the conservative right without me.