Republican versus Democrats?

[Craig1972]

I am now reaching voting age and one very fundamental question eludes me (as I am not an American, and quite illeducated in politics if I might add) --

[yooper]

"There you'll read that the Democrats' donkey symkbol began as a Whig party caricature of Andrew Jackson as a jackass."

Is that true? I've always been under the impression that both the elephant and the jackass were the creations of Thomas Nast. I think he operated about 50 or so years after Jackson's time....

[WSGilcrest]

You can't vote if you are not an Citizen of the United States.

Says who?

[Centurion2000]

Liberals and democrats are scum of the Earth ....

Republicans are more than likely not. Pretty much sums it up.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Democrats are a motley assortment of evildoers,...

Funny, my theasuraus has the exact same entries under Democrat!

[yooper]

"Democrats are a motley assortment of evildoers, useful idiots, racebaiters, racists, political hacks, synchophants, narciscists, abortionists, hedonists, skanks, journalists, globalists, pollsters, professors, welfare cheats, illegal aliens, dead people, professional victims, communists, socialists, nazis, homosexuals, transvestites, lawyers, Islamo-lovers, pacifists, violent criminals, hippies, dopeheads, actors, treehuggers, tyrants and fools."

You forgot shitheads...

[x]

Democrats want more government control. Republicans want less. Democrats will tell you that they are the party of the common people and Republicans the party of the rich. Republicans see the Democrats as the party of those who want, or benefit from, or can live with higher taxes and Republicans as the low tax party. Democrats say that Republicans want more government control over moral questions. Republicans point out that local influence over such questions is a part of self-government and hence of political freedom.

Republicans are the party of the taxpaying, traditionalist majority and democrats are the party of the dissident fringes -- ethnic and sexual preference minorities, bohemian lifestyle liberals, urbanites on the coast, recipients of social expenditures, administrators of social programs, the very rich and the very poor. Unless, that is, these groups are already a majority and the Republicans the fringe.

One thing to understand about America, though: parties have long been coalitions of interest, ethnic and regional groups. In contrast to Continental Europe they've rarely been strongly ideologically oriented. Thus, you'll find many people in each party who don't fit the sterotypes.

Parties did become more ideological and more polarized in the period from the 1960s through the 1990s. The old North-South, Catholic-Protestant divisions were replaced by bitter conflicts over abortion, sexuality, drugs, and foreign policy. Older generations that had basically similar ideas on social questions were replaced by more divided and contentious generations.

Today, there are many who will tell you that the US is two nations, divided by cultural, social and moral questions. But in the 1990s and even more since 2001 the two halves of the country -- liberal and conservative, secular and religious, urban and non-urban -- have grown closer together. Philosophical and ideological schisms persist, but the country is fully capable of functioning and working together.

[tpaine]

"Their understanding of liberty was the liberty to do good, but never ever included the 'right' to do evil."


Their understanding of liberty was the liberty to do good, which never ever included any 'right' of government to decree what was 'evil'.
The rule of constitutional law was to be followed, and a jury was to decide if that law was violated.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

A couple of Liberals were walking down a gravel road south of town. They came apon an older man, laying off in a ditch, crying out and moaning from a beating he'd suffered earlier.
One Liberal said to the other,"this is awful...poor soul."
The other Liberal reponded, "right. We've got to find who ever did this and help him."

[EternalVigilance]

MonroeDNA:

Of course, you carefully avoided my main point; that the founders of America would have laughed contempuously at the idea that pornography would be covered in the First Amendment. Do you have even one scrap of evidence that even one founder would have approved of what you claim? Or do you, like the Left, not give a d*mn about original intent? Do you join with them in rewriting or ignoring history to buttress your own agenda?

Our young Australian friend:

As this gentleman said, in me you are getting a very 'republican' perspective. You are of course also getting a clear picture, through his claims, of the misunderstanding of history of the group in our country that call themselves 'Libertarians'.

[Tench_Coxe]

You're going to get a lot of nonsense on this thread, a lot of posturing, and occasionally some good information.

This is my opinions and observations, so take it for what you will ( I will try to capture the most modern explanation, throughout the two party's histories,things have flip-flopped ):

As another poster pointed out, generally the Republican party looks to the private sector as a means of ''promoting the general welfare'. That term does not mean giving handouts, as is commonly misused. With the Republicans, it tends to look at individuals acting through their own decisions to better themselves and society. This is only a general statement, since there are Republicans that believe in a strong central Federal system ( you'll hear them referred to on here as neo-cons, statists, RINOs, and other assorted terms ).
Also, contrary to what you may receive from many American media sources, Republicans do believe in civil liberties. They also tend to believe in and uphold the concept of private property, which the individual owner may use to whatever the best purpose the owner believes the property should be used.

Democrats tend to believe in the government as the source of solutions to societal ills, and tend to believe that the general welfare is served by government and its dictates, rather than the individual ( You'll note that there is a similarity to the neo-con ). They tend to believe that government is the best distributor of equality, which generally translates into higher taxation and redistribution of wealth generated by the individual.
Contrary to the American media, Democrats today do not whole-heartedly support civil liberties, and base the concept of civil liberties on the idea of 'group rights', rather than an individual having rights. At one time, Democrats did believe in the individual, but that sort of Democrat is a rare breed today.

Another poster said it best. The real difference would be in the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' to describe the two types. These terms, I believe, are 180 degrees different in their meaning from how the rest of the world connotes the terms ( and in this case, the rest of the world is correct in definition, the socialists having co-opted the term liberal about the time of Franklin Roosevelt ). There are 'conservative' Repulicans and 'liberal' Republicans. I am certain that there are 'conservative' Democrats, but their voices are drowned out by the 'liberal' Democrats that dominate that political party.

So, in general terms ( note the neo-con reference earlier ), Republicans tend to be associated with the rights of the individual and the importance of private property, and Democrats tend to be associated with the power of the State trumping individual rights, and do not defend ( or at best, weakly support ) the concept of private property.

[EternalVigilance]

...which never ever included any 'right' of government to decree what was 'evil'..

Bilge.

[Txslady]

The Republican Party that's who


Your right... the dems will let you register to vote even if you are not a citizen - they will even let you register to vote if you are a criminal.

My apologies Mr. Gilcrest!
:o)

[CT]

Craig:

Good on you, lad.

I was born in Australia, with my mother being from Brisbane, and my dad, a U.S. Marine. Lots of cousins, aunts, and uncles downunda!

To your question, what is the difference between the two major U.S parties. First, take the democrats. Once a proud party that was supposedly for the "working man." Democrats took this seriously, and did a lot to help unions grow strong (at the expense of business). But always loyal, and basically the same as the GOP on matters concerning national security and foreign policy.

But that was 50 odd years ago.

Around the late 1960's, the democrat party was hijacked by the radical left and the red diaper doper babies (RDDBs). And since then it has pretty much been down hill.

Kennedy was perceived to be a good president. But his time in office did not last long. So we will never really know.

Johnson was an abject failure. He failed to manage the Vietnam War properly as a miltary objective, and he started a welfare state that eats at America even today.

Carter. What can one say about Jimmy Carter, other than he is not as nice as many would have you believe. A very petty little man, left wing mind-set, and a total failure as a leader.

Clinton. If you hang around here long enough, you will understand all about Clinton. He's what brought most of us here. Corruption is the key word.

Republicans have their faults also. But for many of us here, their faults are in faling to stand up to the dems. Many of them these days try and get votes under the guise that they can deliver the same things the dems are promising -- just for less cost.

Conservative is a better moniker than Republican. At least for me. In other words, I am a conservative first. Just happen to vote GOP because for now they are the largest party I can rely on to roughly follow my beliefs. And those beliefs are in our sacred documents written by our Founders.

Hope that helps.

[hoot2]

"What is the difference between REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS?"

gosh, thats about as tough as,"whats the difference between aussies n kewis?"
cept, we know kewis can't stand nukes...
no worries mate; just get a kalifornica drivers license; n the good people in the demonRAT party will vote for you...
political philosophy is a thing of the past anyway...

[TatieBug]

Craig...my fellow freepers have given you some great information so I won't try but I just have one question, "You wrote that you are now reaching voting age but not an American" so just wondering if you're planning to become a citizen soon? I surely hope so if you're interested enough to take the time to try to understand American politics. God Bless America!

[ProudGOP]

If you don't mind me asking, how is a 2.2 Trillion budget limited goverment?

It isn't. But remember, the Democrats have spent the money for most of the last 40 years. It won't get better for a long time. Maybe never...

[July 4th]

Note our terminology of liberal and conservative and what we use them to describe. I learned about Aussie politics 5 or 6 years ago, and from what I remember, your nation has a much more classical definition of "liberal" than the way we use it in America. Liberal in the US means things like pro-abortion, and pro-gay marriage and is used synonymously with "left wing."

[Green]

Subj: Liberal vs Conservative

There was a young teenage girl that was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and her father was a rather staunch conservative Republican.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to programs like welfare, a large benevolent government, and rich-to-poor tax equalization. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school. She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party and often went sleepless because all of the studying. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of all her studying.

He then asked how her friend Mary, that was attending the same college, was doing. She replied that she was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, was very popular on campus and was at parties all the time. She often wouldn't show up for classes because she was hung over.

He then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend that only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.

She fired back and said "that wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for mine and my friend has done nothing".

After a moment of silence, she replied, "I guess I will never vote liberal again."

[hoot2]

"If you came to America for a better life you are a republican. If you came to America for a hand out you are a democrat. "

thanks old friend...that says it all.

[tpaine]

Their understanding of liberty was the liberty to do good, which never ever included any 'right' of government to decree what was 'evil'.
The rule of constitutional law was to be followed, and a jury was to decide if that law was violated.
-tpaine-


"Bilge." -ev-


BS. - Show me where fed/state/local government has the power to decree anything 'evil'.