|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, um, there are zero "free market" countries in the world. How can you pin down an illusion? ;-)
And, remember, Dems controlled congress for twenty eight of those forty years. Bipartisan screwing of the American people. Keep that in mind when you think there's a rat's ass of difference between the parties in anything but rhetoric...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I find amazing that has yet to be mentioned regarding the two-party system is that the US isn't *technically* such. It is practically such and has been for several generations.
If memory serves:
* Teddy Roosevelt was A Bull Moose Party candidate;
* George Washington explicitly warned against ever letting the current system during his end of term speech, among other things;
* the aforementioned letter had up until a very few years ago had been read aloud to each year's inaugural class of Congresscritters after they take office;
* the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution *if I recall correctly* explicitly state that the citizenry has both the right and the expectation to overthrow an intolerable govornment.
To effect change, so adroitly pointed out early in the thread, without revolution requires a "real" third political party that is not specialized (Green Party) to arise. This will probably not occur before a violent revolution and/or one or more States seceeding. Texas comes most readily to mind since I understand that Texas incorporated its right to lawfully seceed within its state constitution.
The US needs another group of Founding Father types - in terms of political acumen and integrity - at the forefront of that 3rd political party.
Oh, and I nominate Clint Eastwood for the next POTUS on the Bad Mofo Party ticket. Samuel L Jackson for Veep. 'Cause what this country needs are People in Charge that care, that talk softly and concealed-carry hand cannons.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
P.S. to thejeff: Our posting crossed. As you can see, I referred to the Constitution in my original statement and not the amendments. And btw I was referring to many free market nations and not the third world. China is not a free market nation.Obviously China isn't a free market nation. Who is? That's my point. Most of Europe is more socialist and less free market than the US is. The US is the poster child for free market theory. Not that we're actually all that free market, but who, outside of some 3rd world hellholes, is more so?
And when someone refers to the Constitution I assume they're discussing the whole document. Would you also claim it's not Constitutional for women to vote? Doing otherwise leads to stupid pointless arguments.
We don't have a free market. We have crony Capitalism, and both major parties are guilty of allowing Wall Street to run rampant and criminally mess with our markets.
The term "Capitalism" was coined by Marx, and he defined it as the collusion between government and business to screw the common man. It's one thing I do agree with ole Karl on, actually.
I agree with this. Except I think a "free market" would simply make it worse. Prior to the industrial revolution we needed a party that would challenge power abuse within the government - along came the conservatives. After the industrial revolution, immense private power became concentrated in the hands of a few people and the "liberals" sought to wield the government to protect the people from these tycoons. However, this failed. The tycoons just bought out the government and use it to protect themselves from the people. I think there is an illusion that keeps corporations from running amok and that illusion is our government. Even though it is an illusion, there is still some control in that they have to make the population apathetic with the media. I think if that illusion vanished altogether things would become very bad and we would simply slip into a plutocratic oligarchy. At least now we are just on our way toward one.
I don't understand why we need tycoons at all. Why can't workers and community members democratically self manage the means of production without any government or bosses?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The US needs another group of Founding Father types - in terms of political acumen and integrity - at the forefront of that 3rd political party.
I can see a time, in the near future, when, instead of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, the American people will be praising the name of Doodlebug Anklebiter while the rest of you are enjoying your stays in Fun-Timey Reeducation Super Centers!
Vive le Galt!
.
For those of us who are not Americans, can you explain what the difference
is between a Democrat and a Republican? Thanks.
.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those of us who are not Americans, can you explain what the difference is between a Democrat and a Republican? Thanks.
The problem is there are a ton of different answers to this. Ask one person - especially if they're the sort who identifies very strongly with one party or the other - and you'll get one answer; ask someone from the other party you'll get another; ask a third person who's not closely associated with either and you'll get something completely different; ask someone like myself or BT or HD and you'll get "not much".
In theory the Democrats are supposed to be the leftist party - more centralized government power, more liberal morality, greater focus on public services, etc. - and the Republicans the more right-wing - smaller government, more localized power (states' rights over federal, etc.), conservative/traditional moral values, etc.
In practice it's all up in the air, there's so much bleed-over one way or the other, and neither group is very true to its stated goals. And it's all tainted by individual perception, as this very thread shows - one person sees the Repubs as reactionary far-right and the Dems as centrist or center-right; another sees the Repubs leaning left to center-left and the Dems falling off the far-left end of the spectrum.
This was a pretty good thread.
I say.
O, Houstonderek, where art thou?
For those of us who are not Americans, can you explain what the difference is between a Democrat and a Republican? Thanks.The problem is there are a ton of different answers to this. Ask one person - especially if they're the sort who identifies very strongly with one party or the other - and you'll get one answer; ask someone from the other party you'll get another; ask a third person who's not closely associated with either and you'll get something completely different; ask someone like myself or BT or HD and you'll get "not much".
In theory the Democrats are supposed to be the leftist party - more centralized government power, more liberal morality, greater focus on public services, etc. - and the Republicans the more right-wing - smaller government, more localized power (states' rights over federal, etc.), conservative/traditional moral values, etc.
In practice it's all up in the air, there's so much bleed-over one way or the other, and neither group is very true to its stated goals. And it's all tainted by individual perception, as this very thread shows - one person sees the Repubs as reactionary far-right and the Dems as centrist or center-right; another sees the Repubs leaning left to center-left and the Dems falling off the far-left end of the spectrum.
I see.
So how does one know if they are a Republican or a Democrat? Is there a test?
More like an oath of stupidity. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see.
So how does one know if they are a Republican or a Democrat? Is there a test?
Good question.
If you think Obama is doing a good job and the country is finally on the right track, you should probably vote Democrat.If you disagree with that statement, you should probably vote Republican.
EDIT: But for the love of God, do some research that doesn't include polling a gaming company's off topic forum! Go out there and search for whatthe parties stand for and their canidates. See what each party has backed or fought for the last 50 or 60 years. Think for yourself, and vote accordingly.
I see.
So how does one know if they are a Republican or a Democrat? Is there a test?
Good question.
If you think Obama is doing a good job and the country is finally on the right track, you should probably vote Democrat.
If you disagree with that statement, you should probably vote Republican.EDIT: But for the love of God, do some research that doesn't include polling a gaming company's off topic forum! Go out there and search for whatthe parties stand for and their canidates. See what each party has backed or fought for the last 50 or 60 years. Think for yourself, and vote accordingly.
Pretty much this. Try not to let yourself get grouped up in a stereotype - "all Christians are Republicans", "all Californians are Democrats", etc. etc. etc. - and for all that's holy don't vote on party line alone, research the candidate(s) and look into how closely they follow what you're looking for, how well they keep up with their own claims and promises, and how well their past voting records and business practices line up with their current behavior and/or offers of action.
And if you think both sides are morons and incompetents and basically indistinguishable in practice, do as I do and either don't vote, vote 3rd party for the best available option, or do a write-in. I don't expect any candidate worth me supporting to win because neither has an R or D by their name. But I at least have a clean conscience in saying that I didn't support either of the frontliner scumbags.
I recommend Mr, Shiney's Elder Party as a write-in vote. Failing that, vote according to your research. Mickey Mouse gets more and more write-in votes every election I hear...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one that gets the most votes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pardon me but...
Now, we as Americans know that we are essentially immune to propaganda. We have an independent, hard-charging press apparatus and a well-educated, even cynical public; and if that sort of surreptitious manipulation was occurring, the people would detect it and the media would expose it, and the effort would naturally fail.
Ahahahah.
Ahahahhahahah
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHA
Okay I'm out of breath. Carry on.
Because human nature. It's very easy to fall into "us vs them." If Bobby and Bonnie both steal a cookie, Bobby could say "Bonnie is an evil cookie thief because she has pigtails." Bonnie would say "Bobby is an evil cookie thief because he plays Angry Birds." Anything, no matter how stupid and small, to set A apart from B so it's only okay if WE do it.
That's your similarity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought it was sarcasm...
|
Pardon me but...
Now, we as Americans know that we are essentially immune to propaganda. We have an independent, hard-charging press apparatus and a well-educated, even cynical public; and if that sort of surreptitious manipulation was occurring, the people would detect it and the media would expose it, and the effort would naturally fail.Ahahahah.
Ahahahhahahah
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHA
Okay I'm out of breath. Carry on.
O.o
I haven't laughed this hard since Gollum called Doby a b*~!$ on the MTV awards.
o.O
I see.
So how does one know if they are a Republican or a Democrat? Is there a test?
Good question.
If you think Obama is doing a good job and the country is finally on the right track, you should probably vote Democrat.
If you disagree with that statement, you should probably vote Republican.
So you should pay no attention to what Romney plans? Or what the Republican party has done and continues to do?
Personally, I have a lot of issues with Obama, but in almost every case I can think of where I disagree, at the very best Romney would be as bad. In many cases even farther from what I want.
On social issues, there's no comparison. On economic issues I'm much farther to the left than Obama and I can't even see Romney. On foreign policy and civil liberties they're closer, but I see no evidence Romney would be an improvement.
Should I still vote Republican because I don't think Obama is doing a good job? The country still isn't on the right track?
For most people, you're right. The election is likely to be a referendum on Obama's presidency. With little consideration for what would replace him.
Well based on what you said here you'd fall firmly in the first category. You're to the left of Obama on econimic issues, so you must think he's on the right track, he just didn't go far enough. Vote for him again, be my guest.
I swear I tried to word that as easily and unswayable as possible, but no, leave it to someone to scream 'Romney ain't even no option neither!RAWR'. FFS.
I thought it was sarcasm...
I sincerely hope it was.
Still, that laugh helped fix up a rather miserable day, so I'm not complaining too much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's politics. Ask someone if the crayon you're holding is blue or not, and they'll still find a way to sway more than one of those inflatable dancing windsock people.
That is to say, in the issue of substantive policy, candidates from both parties continued the same initiatives in all cases:
This is wildly and demonstrably false. I know it plays nicely into the pseudo-intellectual "All politicians are the same!" narrative, but it simply isn't the case. There are real differences between political parties, and real differences between candidates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is to say, in the issue of substantive policy, candidates from both parties continued the same initiatives in all cases:This is wildly and demonstrably false. I know it plays nicely into the pseudo-intellectual "All politicians are the same!" narrative, but it simply isn't the case. There are real differences between political parties, and real differences between candidates.
That is to say, in the issue of substantive policy, candidates from both parties continued the same initiatives in all cases:This is wildly and demonstrably false. I know it plays nicely into the pseudo-intellectual "All politicians are the same!" narrative, but it simply isn't the case. There are real differences between political parties, and real differences between candidates.
Obama's First Term Accomplishments
More First Term Accomplishments (obviously a progressive-leaning site, but it provides neutral citations)
Romney's Tenure as Governor of Massachusetts (note: Ironically, Mitt Romney was very moderate during his term as Governor, and is only relatively recently embracing the party platform in an effort to provide contrast with Obama; it is a near certainty that he would be a fairly right-leaning President)
In addition, there are a tremendous number of advocacy organizations (gun rights groups, women's groups, LGBT groups, seniors groups, veterans groups, etc.) who regularly rate political figures for their actions and support of the causes they represent. These ratings run the gamut, and are in direct contradiction to the idea that all politicians and political parties are substantively identical.
It's unfortunate that we need citations like the above; the general public should have a level of political knowledge that is complete enough to understand that there are substantive differences between the parties. "All politicians are the same," is a long-running and hollow narrative that it ultimately used for little more than excuse for apathy and inaction. It is incumbent upon you, as a citizen, to be aware of how your political institutions differ, and to use that knowledge to cast an informed vote (and to exercise your informal political muscle).
I'm not sure how Elbe-el decided that there are no substantive differences between parties. It's possible that he gathered up all the similarities and discarded the differences (because, after all, they do have a lot of similarities), but the differences are many and they are important. It's also possible that Elbe-el mistook legislation passed for legislation proposed and backed; it is very rare for legislation to become law without at least some support from both parties. There is a tremendous difference between what you see being passed today, and what laws you would see passed if a single party had absolute control of the legislative process.
Please educate yourselves.
"All politicians are the same," is a long-running and hollow narrative that it ultimately used for little more than excuse for apathy and inaction.
Now yer gettin' it!
Two points.One is that basically I don't think Obama's doing a good job and I don't think the country is on the right track. I think we've veered slightly away from the cliff, but that's hardly the same thing.
More importantly, I don't like the framing of it being just about Obama. You need to think about both candidates and the parties they belong too. It's a choice between the two, not an up or down vote on the incumbent. It's easy to boo the guy in charge, especially when times are hard. It's harder to make a positive case for the other guy.
The first point I addressed with the part of my post that you didn't include in your quote.
For your second point, I'd say this most certainly is about Obama. He is the one up for reelection. Either you think he's ok for a second term, or you don't. I could have phrased it 'Do you think Romney is a good replacement for Obama/do you think Obama did an ok enough job to warrant a second term?' That is what's on the table.
If you don't agree/approve with what Obama did with his first term, why in the hell would you give him a second one?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I guess that would depend on the degree with which one feels he;s done poorly. If it's 'oh, theres some things I would have like for him to do differently' v.s. 'Holy S**t he's f**king everything up' then yes, it is an 'anybody* but Obama' election.
*except Ron Paul.
Mr. Betts sez:
"All politicians are the same," is a long-running and hollow narrative that it ultimately used for little more than excuse for apathy and inaction.
---
Well, one can question the efficacy of waking up at dawn to peddle socialist newspapers outside the factory gates, going to demonstrations week in and week out for years, and walking picket lines at every strike I could find, but I doubt you could call it either apathy or inaction.
Although I don't do any of those as much as I used to.
*except Ron Paul.
I'd vote Paul before Romney or Obama, personally. Chances are he won't be on the ballot though, so it's back to debating whether to write-in Tony Stark or Cthulhu.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cthulhu isn't an American citizen. The real question is Stark or Wayne.
I feel the biggest issue concerns the Supreme Court. That elite body decides issues for all of us (right or wrong) on issues like abortion, same sex marriage, desegregation, and other social matters. Since a small group of men and women ultimately control us more than the President or Congress, you have to ask yourself: who do I want appointing justices over the next four years?
I feel the biggest issue concerns the Supreme Court. That elite body decides issues for all of us (right or wrong) on issues like abortion, same sex marriage, desegregation, and other social matters. Since a small group of men and women ultimately control us more than the President or Congress, you have to ask yourself: who do I want appointing justices over the next four years?
Exactly right.
The biggest single issue to me is overturning Citizens United. Some of those wrinkly prunes have to be wanting to retire soon. Whoever is president in the next 4 years will be able to appoint their replacement(s). I doubt anyone Romney appoints will challenge the status quo on that particular decision.
Does either side gain an advantage from the 'they are both the same' meme?
I feel the biggest issue concerns the Supreme Court. That elite body decides issues for all of us (right or wrong) on issues like abortion, same sex marriage, desegregation, and other social matters. Since a small group of men and women ultimately control us more than the President or Congress, you have to ask yourself: who do I want appointing justices over the next four years?
If there's to be any hope for something resembling democracy, the Fascist Five have to be replaced by sane people. Romney will guarantee more of the same.
For those of us who are not Americans, can you explain what the difference is between a Democrat and a Republican? Thanks.The problem is there are a ton of different answers to this.
Another problem! Right- and left-wing mean very different things to different people. It all depends on your sense of scale.
For me, when I use the terms, it's exclusively referring to the size of government the person favors. Left-wing prefers a larger, more centralized government, and thus the farthest-left wing is an oligarchy, monarchy, communist state, or dictatorship - total and complete control in the hands of the federal state. Right-wing, in response, is smaller government with more focus on local institutions, and thus the farthest-right wing is anarchy, rather than fascism, which on this scale would be far left. Hence why I always have to take a step back from the mind-boggling that goes on when people say the country is tracking to the right - from my perspective, it's gone way left.
I am aware, however, that this is not how everyone perceives the division, and that there are many different ways the two terms are discerned. Which leads to yet more confusion.
As you can see, Americans generally don't know what any of that stuff means.
Sure, in the context you perceive it, I'd say I don't, unless you explain. Can't read your mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The terms derive from the French Revolution and the seating of delegates at the National Assembly with supporters of the monarchy on the right and their opponents on the left.
Since then, they have gone on to mean many different things, depending on time and place, but, generally speaking, the left is "progressive" (a term I hate) and the right "conservative." Again, though, what those terms mean depends upon time and place.
I had never heard of using them to refer to the size of government until about a year and a half ago when Comrade Bitter Thorn referred to the Democrats as "far left" which led to my coming out of the closet as a hardcore old-school Marxist-Leninist on these boards and the evolution of the Comrade Anklebiter avatar. So you guys can all thank BT for that.
EDIT: Specifically, I think it was when BT referred to Bush and Cheney as "socialists" that I flipped my lid.
(O, Bitter Thorn, where art thou?)
Anarchists (with the possible exception of anarcho-capitalists, who, again, I'd never heard of until exposure to Comrade Thorn) have always been referred to as part of the left.
As for the American political scene, yes, the Democrats are considered the left (shudder) and the Republicans the right, but I've always liked the quote from Gore Vidal that the United States only has one party, the Property Party, and it has two right wings.
Vive le Galt!