Just to clarify, there **are ** certainly honorable men and women in both parties. People who adhere to principles. But the parties themselves are about obtaining power and keeping it. And I’m not implying that this process is evil, necessarily. It’s just a part of human nature.
I am not worthy to post in a thread that contains the above, but nonetheless -
Democrats believe that safety is more important than freedom, and that trusting the collective is the best path to safety.
Republicans believe that freedom is more important than safety, and that trusting the individual is the best path to freedom.
Republicans believe in free markets, personal responsibility, individual freedom, and limited government.
Democrats believe in regulated markets, class responsiblity, group freedom, and unlimited government.
Regards,
Shodan
Democrats: A statist party that believes all rights come from government; that the state has an obligation to care for each person from the cradle to the grave; and that the state should and does have the power to deprive whichever citizens it wants, using whatever method it deems necessary, of their property in order to effect that end.
Republicans: Same, but 20 years behind the Democrats.
Uh- who gave us the Patriot Act? Was that not a trade of freedom for safety?
Under a free market, Medicare would be able to negotiate with drug makers for prescription pricing. Republicans pay lip service to free markets until they see an opportunity to let their corporate sponsors raid the national treasury. Individual freedom? As long as that doesn’t include the right to marry someone of the same sex. Apparently personal responsibility does not include those in government- which party turned record surpluses and turned them into record deficits. Is this a sign of personal responsibility?
:eek:
Someone quick with a fire extinguisher! There’s smoke pouring from Shodan’s pants!
what he said, only with a litte more cynicism added to both sides.
I’m a conservative.
I see the Democrats shamelessly promoting a liberal/leftist agenda of government welfare to the electorate to buy votes. Once in office, they shamelessly pander to their corporate sponsors while tossing the occasional bone to their electorate. Democrats spend more on the people than their opponents, as the people demand welfare and government welfare programs.
I see Republicans shamelessly promoting a conservative/rightists agenda of national security and “family values” to the electorate to buy votes. Once in office, they shamelessly pander to their corproate sponsors while tossing the occasional bone to their electorate. Republicans spend more on the military and national security than their opponents, as the people demand a strong military and a strong national security agenda.
I do give the occasional Democrat kudos for Meaning Well, for genuinely being concerned for the welfare of the people, even if I don’t agree that a government spending program will be the solution for whatever the problem of the moment is.
Frankly, I’m disgusted with both parties, especially now with our current Chief Executive Liar. The former Chief Executive Liar wasn’t any better or worse, except that I disagreed with him on more issues than our current C.E.L.
In that case, how would you feel about adopting electoral reforms that would cause the two-party system to break up and a multiparty system to emerge? (As I discussed above.) A lot of “conservatives” (of the National Review type) seem to be very frightened by the prospect when it comes up for discussion at all – but there’s more than one kind of “conservative.” Pat Buchanan (who has founded his own third party, the America First Party) is all for PR and IRV. So are the Libertarians.
Given what I’ve seen of Europe, this would do little more than make the government far worse. The US system has nothing on European corruption, deadlock, and buck-passing.
2 parties = two men not up to the task running for president. 4 parties = 4 men not up to the task running for president. Besides, the parties in the US are not bastions of ideological puritanism. European parties have much more limited appeal, while in US parties its perfectly acceptable to have a broad range of opinions in one party. I think that’s a good thing since it encourages intra-party crosstalk and competition.
But wouldn’t inter-party cross-talk and competition be even better? Better, because it would all be played out in public, even on the floor of Congress.
No, it was not.
I don’t think you can classify government programs like Medicare as existing in a free market. The idea of the government “negotiating” prices is hardly the free market in action. It is more like quasi-socialism.
No, although there are certainly as many examples of Republicans abandoning their principles as there are of Democrats abandoning theirs. Republicans are the ones advocating free-market solutions in things like medical spending accounts, education vouchers, privatizing Social Security, oil deregulation, etc. Democrats, by and large, oppose such things, as they have more faith in government mandated solutions and centralized decision-making.
No, it was more a sign of 9/11, the collapse of the dot-com bubble, and the recession that began back in 2000. Apart from that, I will simply point out which party was in control of Congress when the deficits were turned into surpluses. Certainly we need to balance the budget. But there is a chance that Republicans will do so. There is no chance that Democrats will. Because of the differing core principles in each case.
Regards,
Shodan
On the other hand, a lot of Democrats are royally pissed off because Nader is running again. So it doesn’t seem like one side or the other has a monopoly on fear of third parties.
In my experience, those who lobby for changes to the way we hold elections are those who realize they can’t get elected any other way. So they want to change the rules.
Just like Sore-Loserman in 2000.
The only advantage of splintering parties in the US would be deadlocking government, and thus minimizing their ability to interfere. I don’t think it is worth the trade-off of jiggering the rules to be sure some party wins at least some of the time.
Regards,
Shodan
I am a Democrat, though since I live in Texas, I am probably more conservative than most Democrats this side of Zell Miller. I opose affirmative action, I support the death penalty as long as it is applied very carefully to the most heinous offenders, and I welcome school choice and voucher programs. I even thought George W. Bush did a decent job as Texas’ governor - granted he was a “weak governor” with a strong Democratic Lt. Governor for much of his tenure, and had no ability to make war at that time.
As I see it now the Democrat party is now the centrist party, while the Republican party is becoming a far right party. If people such as Rudolph Giuliani, Lincoln Chafee, and John McCain were in the mainstream of the Republican Party, I would maybe consider voting Republican more.
??? What has electoral reform to do with the disputes over the 2000 election? I don’t recall the Bush or Gore camps mentioning any kind of electoral reform at any point in the process. Would’ve been irrelevant anyway, since that election had to be decided by rules that were in place at the time.
??? Cite? The transparency.org 2001 Corruption Perception Index, ranking countries from 1: Finland (least corrupt) to 91: Bangladesh (most corrupt), places the U.S. at 16 – more honest than half the countries in Western Europe and more corrupt than the other half. See http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2001/cpi2001.html#cpi.
All of this leads me to one inescapable conclusion:
Republicans are corrupt. Democrats are corrupt. The liberal party in Canada is corrupt. The governments of France and Germany are corrupt.
The conclusion: Government is corrupting, and dangerous. We should only tolerate as much of it as we absolutely need, and should shun the expansion of government offered as a solution to our every problem.
All power is corrupting and dangerous, whether it’s government power or corporate power. I don’t trust “voting with your wallet” to eliminate corruption any more efficiently than regular voting does, and I don’t trust big corporations to consider my interests any more than big government.
At least with the Democrats, you end up with corporate interests and government interests keeping each other at bay.
With the Republicans, they join up with the corporate interests to double-tag-team the populace…
But… half of the top 6 countries would be characterised as “socialist” by the US and have much bigger governments then Democrats or Neo-cons can dream of.
??? Show me how private enterprise is less corrupt, or corrupting, than government.