# Difference between Democrat and Republican?

• News
Can someone please state that difference between the two. To me they seem to blur together.

## Answers and Replies

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).

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.

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.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
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.

Mentor

Originally posted by Zeropaxx
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.
It isn't the money, its the power. Political office doesn't really pay very much.

Originally posted by russ_watters
It isn't the money, its the power. Political office doesn't really pay very much.
That doesn't mean there isn't alot of money in it.

Science Advisor

Originally posted by russ_watters
It isn't the money, its the power. Political office doesn't really pay very much.

I certainly agree with this. Vanity is the sin of choice in politics. Greed is just a perk.

Njorl

Jonathan
I agree, Njorl.
I would like to add that generally:
Republicans are conservative.
Democracts are liberal.
That Republicans belive 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!

Mentor

Originally posted by Zero
That doesn't mean there isn't alot of money in it.
?? 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. Originally posted by russ_watters ?? 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.
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.

Mentor

Originally posted by Zero
See? You prove my point..there is tons of cash in politics!
[?] [?] Huh? Oh wait, is this another one of those 0%=50%="equality" things?

Originally posted by russ_watters
[?] [?] Huh? Oh wait, is this another one of those 0%=50%="equality" things?
Go away Russ, your services are no longer required here.

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.

Originally posted by 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.
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.

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).

Mentor

Originally posted by Zero
Go away Russ, your services are no longer required here.
Gee, thats nice. Delete it.
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.
Rage, your second sentence contradicts your first. You used the words "in" and "outside."

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).

FZ+
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.
On the other hand, what company would have Dubya as its CEO? (Without threats and massive bribes...)

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.

Jonathan
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.

So whats 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?

Originally posted by Zeropaxx
So whats 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?
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.

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.

Jonathan
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.

Jonathan, you seem to have such a huge beef with anything similar to socialism...you must really hate that Jesus guy, right?

Jonathan
I have a huge beef with socialism yes, but not Jesus. You see, socialism only works with continous 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').

Originally posted by Jonathan
I have a huge beef with socialism yes, but not Jesus. You see, socialism only works with continous 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').
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.

Jonathan
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.

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.

Originally posted by Jonathan
Well, I didn't understand the second part*snip*

Did you mean:

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.
I meant 'memo', not 'meno'...otherwise, it makes perfect sense. Basing your views on some 2000 year old mythology means as much to me as basing your vies on Spongebob Squarepants.

Jonathan
Oh, it was just the wording that was messing me up, you are refering to my religion. Well, I must say, I'd expect some more tack from you, but no, if there were any evidence to the contrary, I wouldn't believe. But this is beside the point and I will not argue it further. My beliefs on socialism are my own and I will not force them on you, I merely expressed them. However, this extreme book is:
American Government: Continuity and Change, 2004 Edition, By Karen O'Connor and Larry J. Sabato
No, I don't know how it is possible for it to be the 2004 edition, that's just what it says. Note that I say 'almost exactly', the wording is different in the definitions, I will quote the definitions:
Liberal:
One considered to favor extensive gov't involvement in the economy and the provision of social services...
Socialist:
One who advocates an economic system of collective ownership and control of the means of production. (This by default requires lots of gov't involvement.)
And for the heck of it:
Communist:
One who advocates an economic system of ownership by the workers of the means of production and the distribution of reasources. (This too.)
As far as I can tell, the two are merely cousins, and there will be by definition a marked tendency towards them by liberals. Of course this is not always true, because by the standards of fifty years ago I'm a liberal (I'm antiprejudice, proequality of opportunity; these were liberal fifty years ago because of the rampant racism).

Last edited:
wasteofo2
"The difference between democrats and republicans is simple. Democrats have no ideas, and republicans have bad ideas."
-Lewis Black

Jonathan
LOL, and I do hope you're kidding.
But anyways, the topic changed, I'm not sure to what, a few posts back. Oh yes, Zeropaxx wanted input on his ideas (which are quite socialist if you go back and read them), like what is good/bad about them, and how they'd be implemented. So let's get back on topic!

wasteofo2

Originally posted by Zeropaxx
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.

Well making drinking, fast food and smoking illegal would take alot of politicians who aren't supported by those industries and aren't afraid to take chances.

Everyone getting a job would require new industries

1,2 and 5 can really only be accopmlished through something like imperialism or slave labor.

You need to look at your goals more reasonably. For a society to function, you need a government, cause people are scumbags. For a government to work, they need money to spend on things, such as healthcare and education for everyone, and for the govt to have money, they need to tax their citizens.

Last edited: