- #1
Zeropaxx
Can someone please state that difference between the two. To me they seem to blur together.
Difference between Democrat and Republican?
- Context: News
- Thread starter Zeropaxx
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Difference
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the differences between the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States, exploring their ideologies, behaviors, and influences. Participants examine various aspects such as political funding, social policies, and the perceived motivations of politicians, with a focus on the implications for governance and the electorate.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
- Meta-discussion
Main Points Raised
- Some participants note that Democrats are generally more socially liberal while Republicans favor less economic regulation, although this can vary by issue.
- There is a perspective that both parties prioritize financial interests over the welfare of the populace, with some arguing that power, rather than money, is the main motivator for politicians.
- Participants discuss the sources of funding for both parties, with Democrats receiving support from unions and Republicans from corporations, which may influence their actions in office.
- Some argue that the ideological differences are clear, with Republicans advocating for limited government and Democrats supporting a more active government role.
- There is contention regarding the financial realities of political office, with some asserting that while salaries are low, politicians can gain wealth through connections and opportunities outside of their official roles.
- One participant suggests that the animosity between the parties resembles sibling rivalry, while another proposes eliminating the party system altogether.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the fundamental differences between the parties or the motivations of politicians. Disagreements persist regarding the influence of money and power in politics, as well as the effectiveness of the current party system.
Contextual Notes
Some arguments rely on generalizations that may not account for exceptions, and there are unresolved questions about the implications of political funding and the true motivations behind political actions.
- #2
RageSk8
They do as there are moderates on both sides. Democrats tend to be much more socially liberal than Republicans. Republicans tend to favor less regulation of the economy (this depends on the specific form of regulation, but for the most part this holds). Democrats, as a party, tend to be pro-choice, Republicans pro-life. Democrats tend to favor social policy at the federal lever, Republicans at the state level (again depends on the issue).
- #3
Zeropaxx
my view
To me it just seems as simple as they both are into the money rather than the people who elected them. I believe ti should be the other way around. Or atleast make to welfare of the US population a priority, rather than the money.
To me it just seems as simple as they both are into the money rather than the people who elected them. I believe ti should be the other way around. Or atleast make to welfare of the US population a priority, rather than the money.
- #4
Zero
The difference in idiology is there, the difference in behavior is certainly fuzzy. The major difference I see is that Democrats see the world as complex, while the Republicans take a more simplistic stance, and are proud of their simplicity.
- #5
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,843
- 11
Democrats get a lot of their money from big unions. Republicans get most of theirs from big corporations. It does make a difference in how they act when they get into office.
- #6
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,876
- 11,344
It isn't the money, its the power. Political office doesn't really pay very much.
- #7
Zero
That doesn't mean there isn't a lot of money in it.
- #8
Njorl
Science Advisor
- 284
- 22
I certainly agree with this. Vanity is the sin of choice in politics. Greed is just a perk.
Njorl
- #9
Jonathan
- 363
- 0
I agree, Njorl.
I would like to add that generally:
Republicans are conservative.
Democracts are liberal.
That Republicans believe that the gov't that governs least governs best (but of course not ot the point of lawlessness)and the Democrats are for big gov't.
A big problem with defining them is how very general you have to be. There are many exceptions to what others and I have said.
EDIT: Hey, I finally figured out italics!
I would like to add that generally:
Republicans are conservative.
Democracts are liberal.
That Republicans believe that the gov't that governs least governs best (but of course not ot the point of lawlessness)and the Democrats are for big gov't.
A big problem with defining them is how very general you have to be. There are many exceptions to what others and I have said.
EDIT: Hey, I finally figured out italics!
- #10
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,876
- 11,344
?? Yes, it does. There is not a lot of money in politics. The president of the US (he's like the CEO of a company with 250,000,000 employees) makes $400,000. Thats PEANUTS compared with what the CEO of a decent sized company makes and a tiny fraction of what they make after getting back into the private sector. They can make that in a WEEK on the lecture circuit. And look at Hillary Clinton - she made more than DOUBLE for an ADVANCE on a BOOK about being MARRIED to the president than Billy did the whole time he WAS president.
- #11
Zero
See? You prove my point..there is tons of cash in politics! Not to mention if you can funnels some government contracts into your own pocket, which is more common than you might think.
- #12
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,876
- 11,344
[?] [?] Huh? Oh wait, is this another one of those 0%=50%="equality" things?
- #13
Zero
Go away Russ, your services are no longer required here.
- #14
RageSk8
Russ,
Just because the salaries of politicians are not incredibly high does not mean that there is not a lot of money in politics. Many politicians do gain money outside of the political system because of their positions.
Just because the salaries of politicians are not incredibly high does not mean that there is not a lot of money in politics. Many politicians do gain money outside of the political system because of their positions.
- #15
Zero
Uh huh...as though anyone would pay Clinton for his memoirs if he were a plumber, or would pay Bush I anything o speak if he were a schoolteacher. Politics leads to cash indirectly, but as surely as the sun rises in the east.
- #16
BoulderHead
Politicians have a good life.
Politicians;
Their income alone provide for smooth living. On top of that are perks and free services which are available to them. Afterwards, they can land a well paying job making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for what might amount to being little more than a figurehead on a board. They are much better connected to power and wealth than the average citizen. Politics, like prostitution, pays. In this respect there is little or no difference between Democrats and Republicans.
(that last sentence thrown in only to make it appear as if I'm talking on topic, hehe).
Politicians;
Their income alone provide for smooth living. On top of that are perks and free services which are available to them. Afterwards, they can land a well paying job making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for what might amount to being little more than a figurehead on a board. They are much better connected to power and wealth than the average citizen. Politics, like prostitution, pays. In this respect there is little or no difference between Democrats and Republicans.
(that last sentence thrown in only to make it appear as if I'm talking on topic, hehe).
- #17
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,876
- 11,344
Gee, that's nice. Delete it.
Rage, your second sentence contradicts your first. You used the words "in" and "outside."
- #18
Zero
Welcome back, Russ...I'm hoping you had a good weekend?
You have to admit, Russ...there is good money to be made from politics, even though the salary is low. It is the same way that pro athletes can often make much more as endorsers than in their sport(just look at Anna Kornikova).
You have to admit, Russ...there is good money to be made from politics, even though the salary is low. It is the same way that pro athletes can often make much more as endorsers than in their sport(just look at Anna Kornikova).
- #19
FZ+
- 1,599
- 3
On the other hand, what company would have Dubya as its CEO? (Without threats and massive bribes...
)- #20
Zero
We could always say that the Republican Party has turned towards hatred as a weapon against Democratic success, while Democrats have a rational anger about the Bush Administration's failures. There's a big difference right there.
- #21
Jonathan
- 363
- 0
Now Zero you know that's not true, the Democrat and Republican parties hate each other as much and in the same way that siblings hate each other. As near as I can tell, only .00001% of adults of the US have actually grown up.
- #22
Zeropaxx
So what's say we...kill the party system. Why were the parties put together?
Why is there a government?
what is it here to do?
Ask your selves these questions and then ask your selves its the so called "Government, by the people, and for the people," Really for the people?
Why is there a government?
what is it here to do?
Ask your selves these questions and then ask your selves its the so called "Government, by the people, and for the people," Really for the people?
- #23
Zero
No, because too many idiots think that everything exists for the richest 1%. We may as well have royalty and a feudal system in America, because that is pretty much how it works in practice.
- #24
Zeropaxx
saving america
I have spend day and night thinking aobut how to fix this world that we live in for the better part of four months. I could use some input. more heads are better then my out dated piece of wet wear. Any suggestions?
I'm looking to:
1. Make it cheaper to live in america.
2. Have free health care.
3. Make drinking, fatty fast food, and cigarettes made illegal in the united States.
4. everyone gets a job.
5. The best Education for free for everyone.
How do we achieve this I ask you.
Oh yes I do realize that by my calculations we won't need to save the US, but it gives me something to do, when I can't sleep at night.
I have spend day and night thinking aobut how to fix this world that we live in for the better part of four months. I could use some input. more heads are better then my out dated piece of wet wear. Any suggestions?
I'm looking to:
1. Make it cheaper to live in america.
2. Have free health care.
3. Make drinking, fatty fast food, and cigarettes made illegal in the united States.
4. everyone gets a job.
5. The best Education for free for everyone.
How do we achieve this I ask you.
Oh yes I do realize that by my calculations we won't need to save the US, but it gives me something to do, when I can't sleep at night.
- #25
Jonathan
- 363
- 0
I completely disagree. You say 'free health care and free education", but how does one get something for free? The only way I can see it is if health care and education are payed for by taxes, but in that case it really isn't free, you are merely using the gov't as a middle man to pay for things, which is stupid. The whole thing reaks of socialism to me.
I like fast food and am not fat from it, it shouldn't be illegal.
I need some claritfication on this part: everyone gets a job. Do you mean everyone gets a good job? If so, I still disagree, because that too is socialist-esque. Some people are lazy and stupid and do not disserve a good job.
I like fast food and am not fat from it, it shouldn't be illegal.
I need some claritfication on this part: everyone gets a job. Do you mean everyone gets a good job? If so, I still disagree, because that too is socialist-esque. Some people are lazy and stupid and do not disserve a good job.
- #26
Zero
Jonathan, you seem to have such a huge beef with anything similar to socialism...you must really hate that Jesus guy, right?
- #27
Jonathan
- 363
- 0
I have a huge beef with socialism yes, but not Jesus. You see, socialism only works with continuous intervention by God. As I am sure that there is no one alive now that is Jesus, and the millenial reign has not yet started, then all attemps at socialism will fail. I do concede that in theory they sound great, but until God continually intervenes, or changes the laws of physics, it will not work in this world.
Why do you alway mention Jesus was a liberal? According to the classical definition, so was Satan, Hitler, Martin L. King Jr., Stalin, Marx, Gandhi, or anyone else who attempted to change the status quo. (Notice that the Nazi party was the National Socialist party of Germany. BTW, I guess nazi is an acronym or abbreviation for the German equivalent of 'national socialist').
Why do you alway mention Jesus was a liberal? According to the classical definition, so was Satan, Hitler, Martin L. King Jr., Stalin, Marx, Gandhi, or anyone else who attempted to change the status quo. (Notice that the Nazi party was the National Socialist party of Germany. BTW, I guess nazi is an acronym or abbreviation for the German equivalent of 'national socialist').
- #28
Zero
You are a GOOF, man! By the 'classic' definition, Hitler and Stalin we dictators. Liberalism is about freedom and caring about the general welfare of your fellow human beings.
Oh, and basing your political beliefs of a minority interpretation of a specific mythology carries little weight with me, in case you missed the meno I sent out.
- #29
Jonathan
- 363
- 0
Well, I didn't understand the second part, but as to the first, my American Gov't textbook says:
Liberal:
sp.: One considered to favor extensive gov't involvement in the economy and the provision of social services and to take an activist role in protecting the rights of women, the elderly, minorities, and the environment.
gen.:One who seeks to change the...status quo...(I paraphrase, I'm tried of typing so much).
Notice that the first part of the specific definition is almost exactly the same as the definition of socialist.
Hitler and Stalin were merely tring to change the status quo.
Liberal:
sp.: One considered to favor extensive gov't involvement in the economy and the provision of social services and to take an activist role in protecting the rights of women, the elderly, minorities, and the environment.
gen.:One who seeks to change the...status quo...(I paraphrase, I'm tried of typing so much).
Notice that the first part of the specific definition is almost exactly the same as the definition of socialist.
Hitler and Stalin were merely tring to change the status quo.
- #30
Zero
First off, your book is somewhat...extreme? Then again, capitalism only works with government control. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with the government taking a role in protecting the rights of the less powerful, that is the traditional role of American government.