TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Republicans vs Democrates

Republicans vs Democrates

Recently I was asked, how people in USA feel about the Democrates being real close to winning this time?
Please don't hesitate to write some of your thoughts about both (R and D).

Being apolitical i can say nothing about that) so i am making a lil research.

I say it's been four years in coming.

please specify)))

I mean, seriously, I want to know details, thoughts, opinions, ...

Well, I don't know what opinions to share exactly. The election is certainly far from over, so a shift in the Presidency is anything but absolute.

But as for what to expect... well, a look at the differences between Clinton and Bush would be a good place to start. Clinton focused largely on domestic issues, making the economy, education, and healthcare priorities, while balancing the budget. He focused on expanding multilateral cooperation through free trade and diplomacy, and was hesitant to intervene militarily anywhere even in the name of humanitarianism (aka Rwanda).

Bush is a proponent of Democratic Peace Theory, meaning that he believes in spreading democracy around the world at swordpoint in order to facilitate an eventual hypothesized long-term stability, and has used a doctrine of preemptive warfare in order to launch vast state-building efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq to do so. This has caused the national deficit to soar and has impeded the ability of the Administration to successfully address growing domestic concerns. The Republican Party used to be for small government and localized control (aka balancing budgets, promoting education, and limiting the power of government to encroach on civil liberties), but under Bush those goals have largely been abandoned.

Of course, some of that is subjective and up for debate, but that's my general feeling.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I say it's been four years in coming.

Well this election has basically been pre-decided as a democratic victory, which is great in the current relative sense of equilibrium, and lame in the sense of ethics of what a democracy should be.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I say it's been EIGHT years in coming.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Well this election has basically been pre-decided as a democratic victory, which is great in the current relative sense of equilibrium, and lame in the sense of ethics of what a democracy should be.

Turnover is good for a democracy. And it wouldn't have been "basically pre-decided" if this President could keep his approval rating over 30%.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Turnover is good for a democracy. And it wouldn't have been "basically pre-decided" if this President could keep his approval rating over 30%.

+1

How McCain gets so much support though is beyond me, while he seems a lot more sensible than Dubya he also seems like a really enthusiastic "fan" of Bush, which is probably the LAST thing anyone would want to associate themselves with in this election.

Also, I know becoming president should mostly be about who is the best qualified, etc etc, but does the USA really need another geezer in the White House? McCain was a war hero from Vietnam, I get it, but he seems old and weak when he speaks and doesn't come across as being youthful/energetic enough to handle the no doubt taxing job of being president. Then again, I suppose campaigning like a mad man is also very taxing, but still.

I also hope that America wises up to McCain's ploys, he will hammer the fact that he was a POW in Vietnam for 5 years and the fact that he's "tough on security" into as many people's heads as he can, but I think nonsense like that doesn't belong in the race for President.

Especially since there have been no terrorist attacks on the United States since 9/11, the whole "I'm tough on security, NINE-ELEVEN, AL QUAEDA, TERRORISTS EVERYWHERE" nonsense needs to be put to rest.

Saying Mccain is a 'fan' of Bush is an understatement. He agrees completely with Bush on foreign policy...and his only criticism is that Bush hasn't been aggressive ENOUGH when it comes to invading/occupying foreign countries.

What I don't understand is that in response to questions about his age, McCain has publicly stated that he would probably only seek one term, which I find hard to believe.

McCain probably only wants 1 term because he might not live both terms - he had to take out a life insurance policy just to take out a loan for his campaign, just because of his age!

I'm disappointed with the democrats because it took them so long to bear their political teeth. The war in iraq didn't become a democratic concern until long after it should have been. Until IT WAS ALREADY PUBLIC SENTIMENT.

Obama saying "he didn't vote for the war" doesn't say much. He didn't vote, period. And secondly, what would he have voted for in light of the evidence that iraq was building a chemical and nuclear arsenal? The problem was faulty and insufficient evidence, and then a severe lack of accountability. It wasn't a democrat vs republican problem. It was a bad politics problem and a bad administration problem.

Honestly, I'm not even sure how far this election could swing. Something tells me that the powers that be will always be the powers that be, and the powers that be will never allow the power base to swing either too far to the right or to the left.

It's true, electing McCain = More wars.

No idea how he'll pull it off, given a huge number of combat troops are already deployed.... but ya... yeehaw lets kill them terruristz yall.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Saying Mccain is a 'fan' of Bush is an understatement. He agrees completely with Bush on foreign policy...and his only criticism is that Bush hasn't been aggressive ENOUGH when it comes to invading/occupying foreign countries.

He's not supporting Bush, that shot is purely man love. McCain wants a piece of Bush because of his studly air force get up.

Well Bush, if you wanted to pick up an aged fly boy dreaming of his glory years... mission acomplished....

Re: Republicans vs Democrates

quote:

Originally posted by me&myself Recently I was asked, how people in USA feel about the Democrates being real close to winning this time? Please don't hesitate to write some of your thoughts about both (R and D). Being apolitical i can say nothing about that) so i am making a lil research.

It looks like this got a bit derailed.

US sentiment towards the two parties is a huge question.

The first segment of the US populus to understand are the hard liners, those people who will not support the other party no matter who is running. To these people the other side is the enemy. Democratic hardliners use words like "conservative", "business", "coporation", "Republican", "investment", "the market", and "trust fund" as swear words.

By contrast Republican hardliners use "liberal", "hippy", "green", "PETA", "Democrat", "Fag", "socialist", "comunist", "national medicare", and "social security" as swear words.

Of course these nuances don't even apply to all of the Dems / Reps hardliners, and "globalization" seems to be a swear word in both camps right now.

But these hardliners apear (says the Canadian) to be a minority. Because there are only two parties most people seem to fall more in the middle.

The centrist population will have opinions about each issue and is just as likely to fall into either political party on one issue while supporting the other on another issue. This is part of what really makes America great, I will not deny it. Evidence of this centrist population are seen in the differences between candidates such as McCain, Paul, and Guiliani. All three of them make Republicans uncomfortable because thier blend of conservative and liberal stances flies in the face of hardline bi-partizan politics.

In my opinion, that has made watching the Republican primaries more exciting then the Democarts. Obama and Hillary seem to be only very slightly different. I'm guessing the reason for thier similarity is because they want to stand firm on as little as possible because right now shutting up will ensure a Democratic victory.

A last group, which I think is growing quickly, is the cynical centrists. These people don't particularily like either party, seeing them as elites that are out of touch, or people who are to far removed from thier lives to actually have any effect on it. In the cynical center both parties look esentially the same. My feeling is this is where Ron Paul is getting his support from. He's the only candidate who has stood out and stood up to difficult issues without pandering. He is waking up to confronting some harsh realities while everyone else is still trying to keep the American dream alive.

In the end the grass roots are actually quite far removed from the polished, stylized, hollywood portrayal of America that is omnipresent in international media. To understand actually going on and why the cynical centrists might feel the political class aren't going to help them do a little digging into actual American living.

The "black marks" are well discribed if you know where to look. Micheal Moores first movie, "Roger and Me" I believe, shows the sad rust belt reality of the fadding north. Places like Michigan (flint is Micheal Moores home town), Cincinati OH, Syracuses NY, Buffalo NY, Rogchester NY, Ithica NY, Pitsburgh, Philidelphia, Detroit, and Chicago are good examples of the under belly of lost manufacturing.

New Orleans by contrast is a disaster still. It doesn't look like anything is going to get fixed any time soon either.

The Catskills (sp?) mountain range in the south also hide some of the worst depravaty in the country. Inbreading, illiteracy, disease, iscolation, and progress are things that don't even concern this group because they are to busy hunting 'coons for supper to worry about that (of course they aren't going to have huge voter turnout either). As alarmist as this sounds there is some truth in it, area's of the south (NOT the whole south) had to have the word invented simply to describe the level of backwards that is acchived in this region, "hillbillies" (the people that red necks and hicks make fun of).

Across the coast in LA gangs run large sections of the city. Reading about LA in the past 30 years is like seeing three gangs compete for control. Two are black and one is white. The sad thing is that the white gang seems to go by the name LAPD (los angeles police department). I'd need some people on the ground to confirm this but the city sounds like it is really segregated by armed and violent organiztions (LAPD included). My suspicion is that other cities (like Miami, Chicago, Detroit) have similar problems.

Yeah, so the hard liners pick thier party and stick with it but three huge segments don't like either party, switch back and forth, or have so much difficulty staying alive that anything beyond regional politics matters little to them.

That's my lengthy rant from arms length (Canada).

Long time no post for me, but I'm not a fan of either part. I'm expecting "change," but in neither a good nor progressive sense. It will be change for something different from the last 8 years (the magnitude, means, and type different depending upon who wins), but it will not be effective and it will not fix the problems that need addressed the most. I guess I'm throwing my lot in with the cynical centerist camp. We need a Teddy Roosevelt, and we needed him four years ago.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.