I've seen some posts on here that seem to imply that Democrats do things differently from Republicans. That has not been my experience. I'm not so much interested in examples as I am the question of "Is there a dime's worth of difference between these parties?"
Are Democratic party tactics significantly different from Republican ones.
- Thread starter Witling
- Start date
Just some random thoughts on the two party system. I think the two party system was really meant to provide balance more than anything, so no one side had too much power. It seems this has no become extremely adversarial, with both sides deciding they, and only they, know best and must do anything to "beat" or prove they are better than the other. In all this adversarial partisanship, nothing get's done and everyone just fights and demonizes the other side to promote their point of view.
I think what has been lost is the ability for the two sides to work together, and compromise with each other to get things done. If half the energy they used to attack and demonize the other side was used toward working together and getting things done, we would be a much better country for it. Just take the energy of one Ann Coulter or one Michael Moore and use that to get things done, instead of attack the other side...
Look at this board. We have both extremes, and all they do is argue about who's right and who's wrong instead of actually trying to come up with ideas that will work and that both sides can live with. The term "bipartisanship" seems to just be a buzz word now that is thrown out there when election time comes around..
I think what has been lost is the ability for the two sides to work together, and compromise with each other to get things done. If half the energy they used to attack and demonize the other side was used toward working together and getting things done, we would be a much better country for it. Just take the energy of one Ann Coulter or one Michael Moore and use that to get things done, instead of attack the other side...
Look at this board. We have both extremes, and all they do is argue about who's right and who's wrong instead of actually trying to come up with ideas that will work and that both sides can live with. The term "bipartisanship" seems to just be a buzz word now that is thrown out there when election time comes around..
Insane 3d. I agree with what you said, but what's the compromise between giving gays the economic advantage of marriage and not giving them that advantage? What's the middle ground between a preemptive attack is OK based on truly limp evidence and a preemptive attack is not OK? Believe me, this is a mystery to me.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
What's wonderful about this two party system is thier hostility and discusting behavior is actually a form of comprimise. The founders of this counrty were the smartest men ever (dispite 3/5th BS and stuff) the mechanics are flawless. What you call "extremely adversarial" is great and leads to comprimise at the end of the day/
Well, on those specific issues, it's not that easy since both sides have hardened themselves so much into an adversairal mode that they won;t even begin to think of compromise. It's the my way or the highway mentality. As for gays, it's a touchy subject. I would think a middle ground would be to give them the same legal protections under the law as normal married couples, but define it differently so people that think marriage should only be opposite sex unions will still be the only ones deemed "married". I really don't have the answers. The solution I would think was fair, would likely ruffle the feathers of those who oppose it.
As for Iraq, I think they should have to have solid evidence to do any such major military undertaking, and ideally only when we are really under a direct threat...not just a hyped up one.
The point is, no one person has the answers. The answers come from people of differing viewpoints working together to come up with a common solution.
As for Iraq, I think they should have to have solid evidence to do any such major military undertaking, and ideally only when we are really under a direct threat...not just a hyped up one.
The point is, no one person has the answers. The answers come from people of differing viewpoints working together to come up with a common solution.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
The hostility is more a refeltion of our times than anything else. People in general are more rude and frank than they used to be and our politicians are not exempt from this trend. I still think every bill passed is a comprimise. Just look how they are loaded with issues both sides want.
Well, that may be the case sometimes, but the level of partisanship seems to have reached a level where things rarely get done in a bipartisan manner. It usually ends up being who has the most power, or majority. One thing that might help with this is to have the house and the senate both be split 50/50, but this is basically unrealistic under the current political system.
Pre-9/11 I was probably a left-leaning libertarian. Post 9/11 I'm a warmonger 
So I can say I've been on both sides of the fence.
I think when it comes to the usual crap the politicians argue about, there isn't a whole lot of difference. When it comes to the 9/11 stuff, I think the Republicans took the hardline, and now the democrats are floundering. So they are pulling out all the stops, and the Pub's are responding in-kind.
So I can say I've been on both sides of the fence.I think when it comes to the usual crap the politicians argue about, there isn't a whole lot of difference. When it comes to the 9/11 stuff, I think the Republicans took the hardline, and now the democrats are floundering. So they are pulling out all the stops, and the Pub's are responding in-kind.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
I was looking at an article today (yesterdays paper though) and the article was that the Texas GOP only would deal with thier 'Friends'
and those who fully supported their viewpoint. So the decision was made at the prompting of Tom DeLay to completely cut the funding
for all programs that the Democrats were in favor of, as they has not done as they were told to do in Texas.
This was like a 130 Million budget that was to go to lower income people in the way of health benefits, educational assistance, etc.
I fail to see how anything like this is a bennefit to the American Public, as the pet projects for the local GOP were more special breaks
and tax incentices for Big Business and the Oil Industry.
and those who fully supported their viewpoint. So the decision was made at the prompting of Tom DeLay to completely cut the funding
for all programs that the Democrats were in favor of, as they has not done as they were told to do in Texas.
This was like a 130 Million budget that was to go to lower income people in the way of health benefits, educational assistance, etc.
I fail to see how anything like this is a bennefit to the American Public, as the pet projects for the local GOP were more special breaks
and tax incentices for Big Business and the Oil Industry.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter