What do democrats/republicans believe?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by muffinman, Oct 17, 2006.

  1. muffinman macrumors 6502

    muffinman

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Location:
    San Diego, California
    #1
    I'm starting to really "enjoy" if you will politics, but have a hard time understanding democrats and republicans. What do democrats believe, and what do republicans believe?
     
  2. frankblundt macrumors 65816

    frankblundt

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Location:
    South of the border
    #2
    The divine rule of Mammon, like pretty much everyone else. The details of difference are branding issues.
     
  3. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #3
    You're not going to get a straight answer (because there isn't one). Fact is, no two Democrats or Republicans have the exact same beliefs.

    Quite honestly, I hate all political parties; we'd be much better off without them.
     
  4. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #4
    The theory is that Democrats tend to be socially and fiscally liberal, whereas the Republicans tend to be socially and fiscally conservative.
     
  5. iSaint macrumors 603

    iSaint

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    South Mississippi y'all, near the water!
    #5
    One believes they are right and the other believes they are wrong.
     
  6. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #6
    At the moment it would seem the republicans think the best thing for this country is to have a King while dismantling the Constitution,Bill of Rights and Geneva Convention. We have a president who claims he's christian but then wants to Torture folks and a republican Congress who's looking the otherway. Bush has now been holding people for years without trials? America or Nazi Germany? America or communist Russia? Its hard to tell the difference these days. I almost think this president would outlaw the other party if he just had a few more votes.
     
  7. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #7
    I believe they both had distinct theories, which is Dems for government social-ism, government taking care of people while give maximum liberty, while repubs firmly believe free-market system and less government influence on the market.
    but now.
    Repubs only believe everybody should carry a bible everywhere, any time, minority (racial or religion or sex orientation or whatever) need to be eliminated to create a white, christian nation.
     
  8. FleurDuMal macrumors 68000

    FleurDuMal

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    London Town
    #8
    Both appear to believe that the American people are stupid.
     
  9. bowens macrumors 6502a

    bowens

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Location:
    Trenton, FL
    #9
    Republicans and Democrats

    I was just glancing throught both of these and thought this was kind of funny from the Democratic platform.

    I think this is funny how democrats still say we are fighting this war unilaterally. There are many other forces right there next to us. Let me list a few.

    Besides the U.S. there is:
    U.K.
    Australia
    Korea
    Poland
    Romania
    Georgia
    Denmark
    El Salvador
    Azerbaijan
    Mongolia
    Albania
    Latvia
    Slovakia
    Czech Republic
    Lithuania
    Armenia
    Bosnia and Herzegovina
    Estonia
    Macedonia
    Kazakhstan
    Moldova

    When we went in there were 19 more.

    That's a total of 40 countries. But the Dems are right. We did this whole thing unilaterally. I mean, we went and got U.N. support like they wanted us to but that wasn't good enough. Even the media says we are fighting this war unilaterally. Are they that out of touch?
     
  10. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #10
    Im still wondering just why we attacked Iraq? Its not like they did 911:confused: Why are we even in Iraq? Whats the point? so a Shiite theocracy can run it? What happend to a guy named Bin Laden? wasnt he and most of his boys Saudi? werent they funded by the Saudi's? little points.
     
  11. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #11
    Unilaterally is obviously a literal exagguration, but the fact is that most of those countries are insignificant militarily. There are only a few military powers in the world. Pretty much the UK and Australia (and to some degree Poland given their large commitment) are the only significant powers remaining on the list. Italy and Spain (who have since left) are gone. The Netherlands, to a lesser extent, counts. Japan has a military, but little force projection capacity and they sent a tiny contingent (still significant for them, of course). And South Korea had no choice in the matter, given their reliance on the US for their defense.

    The glaring exceptions are France, Germany, and not that anyone would expect them at the party, Russia, China, and India. To some extent Canada is also a significant military player (tiny army, great projection). Their absense is more significant politically. In fact, when you look down the list, there aren't very many countries on it that had much real choice in the matter. The new NATO countries cannot afford not to support US policy. And the claim of UN support is dubious, at best. UN support was for measures, not invasion.
     
  12. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #12
    That's the pure truth of it. Iraq was weak, without WMDs, no threat and anything but a haven for terrorists.

    But...

    Saddam Hussein once ordered the assassination of George HW Bush

    And...

    Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney wanted the oil.

    The rest of it was all lies, hence the huge international condemnation of the invasion. Even from the population of all those countries bowens lists.

    Bush's war. Nothing more.
     
  13. bowens macrumors 6502a

    bowens

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Location:
    Trenton, FL
    #13
    If the war was all about oil, then shouldn't we be getting some of it? Don't you think gas prices would have dropped if we had all this oil?
     
  14. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #14
    In case you haven't noticed, the war hasn't exactly gone well or as planned.
     
  15. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #15
    If you read the Project for a New American Century, that's what Cheney and Rumsfeld honestly believed would happen.

    Shame they weren't the experts they thought they were, isn't it. Of course, there were millions of us with a more global world view screaming at them not to be so stupid back in 2002, but unfortunately listening isn't high on a NeoCon's list of strengths.
     
  16. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #16
    Holy crap.

    What started off as a simple broad analysis question, managed to get 4 responses before it turned into a pissing match. Everybody who has posted after iSaint - I do believe you are the problem with politics. Maybe you would do well to read this thread.
     
  17. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #17
    both appear to be right.. :eek:
     
  18. FleurDuMal macrumors 68000

    FleurDuMal

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    London Town
    #18
    That depends. Does politics make us stupid? Or do we make politics stupid? Or both?
     
  19. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #19
    Whats wrong with American politics isn't partisanship, it's the fact that we have a two-party system that doesn't represent the real left. Of course the two parties are going to be partisan, they have a lot in common, so they need partisanship to try to show people how "different they are".
     
  20. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #20
    Real left, fake left, whatever. The point is that there is a whole streak of posts in here that blow off the original question of "what do d/r believe?" to go on a "R are the bain of man's existance. No, D are the bain" rampage."

    Frank, Eric, Once, and Saint actually tried to explain what you just wrote, but unlike those that followed them, they managed to refrain from injecting their own issues. Eric put it best when describing the individuals, Once in describing the actual parties.
     
  21. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #21
    People are right to tell you there's no easy answer to "What is a Democrat?" or "What is a Republican?" Just look at the schism going on now between the evangelical far-right and the more traditional Republicans.

    Best I can do is give you a snapshot. For myself, I am a Democrat. I am fiscally moderate, which means:

    • I want a balanced budget;
    • I want a strong military, but not pie-in-the-sky boondoggles like "Star Wars";
    • I think spending money on social programs is a good thing, as long as you can show that the programs work and improve people's lives;
    • I do not believe in the "invisible hand of the market", for reasons which are currently all too obvious;
    • I thing government regulation of business is a good thing, as long as it's not too oppressive, because
    • Capitalism does work, after all...it's just that unbridled capitalism is untimately self-destructive.
    I am also socially liberal, which means:

    • I want to see big improvements in how the U.S. takes care of its poorest people (which does not necessarily mean throwing money at them);
    • I want the U.S. to be a major player, but not a bully, in world affairs;
    • I want us to obey international law;
    • I listen to responsible environmentalists;
    • I'd like to see alternative fuels tomorrow, if possible;
    • I want to stop screwing around and propping up two-bit dictators to further the U.S.' own needs (because it always seems to backfire);
    • I am against war except as a last resort;
    • I want a smarter, stronger, more targeted response to terrorism than what we've got;
    • I don't think the government has any business regulating consensual sex between adults;
    • I respect gays and would like to see, at the very least, commitment ceremonies which carry all the legal weight of marriages;
    • I think religion belongs in church and politics belongs in government buildings;
    • I abhor the government having broad wiretapping capabilities;
    • And, in fact, I think the three branches of government should remain separate; that means no "signing statements" that violate laws passed by Congress (not to mention the Constitution), and no interference with judges' ability to make independent rulings.
    As you can see, a few of my beliefs slop over into the categories that Republicans would like you to believe are exclusively theirs, such as balancing budgets, keeping a strong military and protecting people's lives from government intrusion. That's why those cartoonish portraits of liberals that Rush Limbaugh and others paint are so infuriating. They are just that, shallow cartoons.
     
  22. rdowns Suspended

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #22

    It appears they both have the same beliefs - campaign cash is king!
     
  23. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #23
    muffinman, Thomas Veil makes some good points, although my opinion is that his limits aren't agreed to by national level Democrats. He and I aren't far apart as to goals; our disagreements would be more about how to achieve those goals. I'm conservative, generally, but I definitely vary from issue to issue.

    As a generality, Democrats seem to look to Government as first responders; to Government as the appropriate place for solutions to social problems. There seems to be little interest in private-sector solutions. I've coined the word "statist" to exemplify this worldview.

    The Republicans were less statist at one time, but that seems to have become a thing of the past. People allege, for instance, that Bush is a conservative, yet he favored the "No Child Left Behind" and the Free Pills for Old Farts deal. Those programs could have easily been part of LBJ's Great Society.

    I'm sorta seeing an absence of any real political philosophy in either party, regardless of rhetoric. They seem only to respond to their own special interest groups in order to use government money to buy votes--as was predicted over 200 years ago.

    For sure, we're in a time of political, social and economic change. I have no clue where we'll wind up. Many of the old political labels are pretty close to meaningless.

    'Rat
     
  24. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #24
    The reality is that the definitions change over time as the parties shift for electability or other reasons. Being something of a communist, I've always thought of Democrats as a more labor/small-business oriented party and Republicans as a more wealthy/big-business oriented party. The social bents of the parties have certainly changed over time, but I think that to some degree Republicans have traditionally been concerned about individual liberties and Democrats about social liberty. That balance has definitely changed as Republicans have seemingly lost their concern for individual liberties (rights to freedom from government, trials, etc) to prioritizing a social liberty (freedom from terrorism).
     
  25. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    You can look online for the official party doctrine for either party. I can only tell you what I believe.

    Less intrusive government.
    Balanced budgets.
    Stong and wise military.
    Equal treatment under the law for all.

    There are more, but time is short at the moment.

    I could add the obligatory "this is what the other party believes" harangue, as so many others have seen fit to do, but I wouldn't listen to what a liberal says a conservative believes, nor would I listen to a conservative tell you what a liberal belives. They'll both be spinning.

    Let's see if we can keep this to a "this is what I believe" rather than a "let me tell you what those scum****s believe", OK?
     

Share This Page