Is there really any difference between parties? (1 Viewer)

[pinkham13]

We get operation warp speed from Trump who was a Democrat his whole life before he became a Republican. I believe Pfizer gave a big contribution to his campaign by the way. Many on the left wouldn’t take a “Trump vaccine.” Now we have Biden mandating these warp speed injections. Difference between the two politicians on pushing experimental injections with no repercussions for the opioid drug pushers for injuries is pretty much zero.

Hero super American Trump bails out all kinds of companies that should have gone bankrupt because you know ….Covid. Companies that took care of their CEOs first by buying back stock and inflating earnings with basically an accounting trick got bailed out. Then these same companies turn around and dictate warp speed injections.Is blanket medical advice a good idea ever?

So who is cocaine Mitch married to? I’m sure you all know the story. Hunters laptop? Seems to me both sides have been bought and we’re all screaming my crook is better than your crook at each other while the uni-party follows the well laid roadmap to Agenda 2030.

 

[KiddLattimer]

At this point it's hard to believe most of it is anything more than pro wrestling kayfabe.

During the election the Dems are for lots off issues and platforms but they "just cant get the votes" because the ones in safe districts are very concerned about taxing billionaires (even though literally zero live in one of their states). Eventually it gets whittled down to a few crumbs and tax breaks for rich people somehow. Then the Republicans just get everyone all spun up about social issues while they do whatever they want behind the scenes. 

I certainly got as worked up over the elections as anyone over the last two cycles but honestly what's the point anymore? 

 

[Desert_Power]

Yes, obviously. 

 

[HellToupee]

Behind the smoke and mirrors for the most part it’s meet the new boss , same as the old boss. It’s a Tom & Jerry cartoon where they try to harm each other and then hit the clock and leave as buddies. 

 

[HellToupee]

At this point it's hard to believe most of it is anything more than pro wrestling kayfabe.

 

[Sparky Big Time]

The parties serve only to divide us, we have much more in common than we have in conflict.  The politicians win when we are at odds.  the media now flames those divisions.

The abuses of tyranny are restrained by the mutual influence of fear and shame; republics have acquired order and stability; monarchies have imbibed the principles of freedom, or, at least, of moderation; and some sense of honour and justice is introduced into the most defective constitutions by the general manner of the times.

 

[Insein]

At this point it's hard to believe most of it is anything more than pro wrestling kayfabe.

During the election the Dems are for lots off issues and platforms but they "just cant get the votes" because the ones in safe districts are very concerned about taxing billionaires (even though literally zero live in one of their states). Eventually it gets whittled down to a few crumbs and tax breaks for rich people somehow. Then the Republicans just get everyone all spun up about social issues while they do whatever they want behind the scenes. 

I certainly got as worked up over the elections as anyone over the last two cycles but honestly what's the point anymore? 

Best description you could have used. 

The ideologies on paper are different but when the lights go off and no one is watching, they're all hanging out together watching the interest on their insider traded portfolios roll in. 

 

[Herb]

So now that we have a bit of an ideological cross-section of posters that are in agreement, why do we all still sit around here and ostracize each other for supporting opposite sides of the same coin?

We all want (mostly) the same things, and we agree that the elected officials we hire are in aggregate horrifically failing at their jobs. So why don't we fire the bastards? And why do things seemingly never change for the better?

 

[KiddLattimer]

So now that we have a bit of an ideological cross-section of posters that are in agreement, why do we all still sit around here and ostracize each other for supporting opposite sides of the same coin?

We all want (mostly) the same things, and we agree that the elected officials we hire are in aggregate horrifically failing at their jobs. So why don't we fire the bastards? And why do things seemingly never change for the better?

I think the biggest issue is that "the bastards" aren't the politicians but the people behind the scenes and the people pushing narratives. We can vote out the bad politicians all we want but there will be more ready to step in and fill the void. 

I think that feeds in to your first question as well... the media (on all sides) gets people fired up beyond the point of stepping back and thinking. I don't know if it's necessarily because they're "evil" like some would say but at the end of the day they're a business, not a public service. If they came on the air and said "everything is great today and they all got along and passed everything" their viewership would plummet. Instead they have to make sure you tune in next week to see if Stone Cold Chuck Schumer can get his revenge on Vince McConnell. 

 

[Dan Lambskin]

Both Wings are on the same Bird.
-Ice T

 

[John123]

The difference I see is that the things the GOP pushes for are reversible while the things the DEMS try to get through are permanent.  I can live with temporary changes because when they don't work out we can reverse them.  I have major issues with expanding entitlements that won't ever be reversed.

 

[pinkham13]

The difference I see is that the things the GOP pushes for are reversible while the things the DEMS try to get through are permanent.  I can live with temporary changes because when they don't work out we can reverse them.  I have major issues with expanding entitlements that won't ever be reversed.

You mean like the Patriot Act and TSA under Bush? I wonder if any Democrats voted against that. Obviously not enough if any at all.

 

[The Commish]

The difference I see is that the things the GOP pushes for are reversible while the things the DEMS try to get through are permanent.  I can live with temporary changes because when they don't work out we can reverse them.  I have major issues with expanding entitlements that won't ever be reversed.

Dont understand this at all. Tax break to a bunch of people and business isnt any more "reversable" than a child tax credit etc. 

The only meaningful difference we see these days is WHO the money is allocated to. If you want the money going to the rich and businesses. vote GOP. If you want it gong to social programs vote DEM. Look at the two major bills that have been passed in the last 5 years. It tells the story rather clearly. 

 

[John123]

You mean like the Patriot Act and TSA under Bush? I wonder if any Democrats voted against that. Obviously not enough if any at all.

The President doesn't pass legislation so by trying to tie it to Bush you're already being partisan.  Can we knock that off?  And I don't remember these acts very well but my vague recollection is they were bipartisan bills passed after 9/11.  If you've got more info I'll gladly read it.  And I'm a strong opponent of both for the record.

 

[John123]

Dont understand this at all. Tax break to a bunch of people and business isnt any more "reversable" than a child tax credit etc. 

The only meaningful difference we see these days is WHO the money is allocated to. If you want the money going to the rich and businesses. vote GOP. If you want it gong to social programs vote DEM. Look at the two major bills that have been passed in the last 5 years. It tells the story rather early. 

I don't want more money spent on ANYONE.  I'd be fine with modest tax increases if the money was spent to bring down our debt and/or in a wise fashion.  I read a headline today the BBB would lower taxes on most people making more than a million dollars.  How is that a good thing?

 

[fruity pebbles]

I think they’re both part of the money party and Democrat and Republican are small subsets of that. 

 

[CletiusMaximus]

“The greatest trick the media ever pulled was convincing the world there's a meaningful difference between a Democrat and a Republican."

Me, with apologies to Charles Baudelaire.

 

[The Commish]

I don't want more money spent on ANYONE.  I'd be fine with modest tax increases if the money was spent to bring down our debt and/or in a wise fashion.  I read a headline today the BBB would lower taxes on most people making more than a million dollars.  How is that a good thing?

Thats fine....doesnt go to explaining how one groups bills can be reversed and the others not. Thats just incorrect. 

 

[TakiToki]

There may be some meaningful differences between R and D, but I found the Pew Research political party quiz (discussed in another thread) question asking to rate each party on a scale from 0-100 to be an opportunity to pay homage to the great Robert Parish

 

[pinkham13]

The President doesn't pass legislation so by trying to tie it to Bush you're already being partisan.  Can we knock that off?  And I don't remember these acts very well but my vague recollection is they were bipartisan bills passed after 9/11.  If you've got more info I'll gladly read it.  And I'm a strong opponent of both for the record.

I responded to the part where you said the GOP has a temporary impact. Obviously, that’s incorrect and baseless. I also supported my original post as you pointed out the bills I referred to were uni-party approved.

If anyone became partisan it was when you basically said the GOP was the lesser evil because temporary impact or something. I was hating on the still here 20 years since Bush and the uni-party approved TSA/Patriot Act. I hate all politicians. Some definitely more than others I guess. But my crook is definitely not any better than your crook lol!

 

[John123]

I responded to the part where you said the GOP has a temporary impact. Obviously, that’s incorrect . I also supported my original post as you pointed out the bills I referred to were uni-party approved.

If anyone became partisan it was when you basically said the GOP was the lesser evil because temporary impact or something. I was hating on the still here 20 years since Bush and the uni-party approved TSA/Patriot Act. I hate all politicians. Some definitely more than others I guess. But my crook is definitely not any better than you crook lol!

The following are the vote counts for the Patriot Act, per Wikipedia:

Passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66)

Passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1)

I'm not gonna play your "uniparty" games when the legislative record shows differently.  Not to mention that this act had expiration dates and has been extended multiple times since it was passed.  In fact, much of the Patriot Act expired and was then reinstated under President Obama:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act

So, sorry, not playing your games.

 

[John123]

Thats fine....doesnt go to explaining how one groups bills can be reversed and the others not. Thats just incorrect. 

When I talk about about the GOP enacting temporary things vs the Dems enacting permanent things, I'm thinking a lot about entitlements.  The GOP enacts tax cuts, the DEMS enact the Affordable Care Act.  One can be changed; the other may be modified but will never be repealed.  I fully admit this is my take on this issue.  I'm not trying to get in to an argument like Pinkham13 seems to want to do. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Yes/No   

Big money is in deep with both parties, and in that sense there is little difference between the two when you see big corps and lobbying firms donating to both parties.  In the end that's what they care about.   On our level, of course the two parties are different, and that's by design so we ##### at each other, and not at them.  

 

[pinkham13]

The following are the vote counts for the Patriot Act, per Wikipedia:

Passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66)

Passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1)

I'm not gonna play your "uniparty" games when the legislative record shows differently.  Not to mention that this act had expiration dates and has been extended multiple times since it was passed.  In fact, much of the Patriot Act expired and was then reinstated under President Obama:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act

So, sorry, not playing your games.

So 455 yes votes and 67 no votes using your figures. The giant bureaucracy it spawned was supported by a landslide in the uni-party and it still exists today more than20 years later through both R and D administrations. You basically proved my point  

Sorry to break it to you. There is no Santa and there isn’t much difference between crooks in Congress or Presidents who have Ds or Rs on their resume. 

 

[AAABatteries]

“The greatest trick the media ever pulled was convincing the world there's a meaningful difference between a Democrat and a Republican."

Me, with apologies to Charles Baudelaire.

Add "politician" to the end of your sentence and I mostly agree.  I think the two sides and a good portion of their members are fairly different.  The parties themselves and most of the politicians are horrible and not only contribute to dividing the members of the two parties but are almost wholly responsible for nothing ever getting done.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

Yes/No   

Big money is in deep with both parties, and in that sense there is little difference between the two when you see big corps and lobbying firms donating to both parties.  In the end that's what they care about.   On our level, of course the two parties are different, and that's by design so we ##### at each other, and not at them.  

I forgot where I saw it but there’s a quote that always sticks out, it was basically “you’ll get Goldman Sachs policies either way, the rhetoric will just be different “

 

[pinkham13]

I forgot where I saw it but there’s a quote that always sticks out, it was basically “you’ll get Goldman Sachs policies either way, the rhetoric will just be different “

Good one Dan!

 

[Herb]

Yes/No   

Big money is in deep with both parties, and in that sense there is little difference between the two when you see big corps and lobbying firms donating to both parties.  In the end that's what they care about.   On our level, of course the two parties are different, and that's by design so we ##### at each other, and not at them.  

  I think the two sides and a good portion of their members are fairly different.  The parties themselves and most of the politicians are horrible and not only contribute to dividing the members of the two parties but are almost wholly responsible for nothing ever getting done.

I agree with both of you. 

Both "sides" (I really hate that term) are comprised of people that want essentially the same things. Freedom, prosperity,  health, etc. And the crap we get tied up in arguing about is spawned by many things. But fundamentally, a lot of the contention lies in our collective failure to stop trying to convince others of the correctness of our perspective, and start giving a good-faith effort to understand theirs.

 

[The Commish]

When I talk about about the GOP enacting temporary things vs the Dems enacting permanent things, I'm thinking a lot about entitlements.  The GOP enacts tax cuts, the DEMS enact the Affordable Care Act.  One can be changed; the other may be modified but will never be repealed.  I fully admit this is my take on this issue.  I'm not trying to get in to an argument like Pinkham13 seems to want to do. 

IMO you are conflating "cant" and "wont"  

They could have repealed the ACA durung the first two years of Trump's tenure, but they chose not to because it was popular. 

From that perspective, I think its more accurate to say the Dems enact policy that ends up being popular and tough to take away because of the political capital required. 

 

[pinkham13]

IMO you are conflating "cant" and "wont"  

They could have repealed the ACA durung the first two years of Trump's tenure, but they chose not to because it was popular. 

From that perspective, I think its more accurate to say the Dems enact policy that ends up being popular and tough to take away because of the political capital required. 

I know when Clinton abolished the glass-steagle act separating commercial banking and Wall Street it was popular with the banksters. Doesn’t help the average person in anyway and it surely contributed to the 2008 mini depression but the uni-party approved taking the guard rails away anyway. Just because it’s popular with the banking mob or other special interest gangs doesn’t make it good or right. 

 

[FairWarning]

Behind the smoke and mirrors for the most part it’s meet the new boss , same as the old boss. It’s a Tom & Jerry cartoon where they try to harm each other and then hit the clock and leave as buddies. 

Idk how much they try to divide us.  I know neither side tries to unite though.    The one thing about Bernie is he didn’t play by party rules, that is why he had a loyal base.  It’s also why the D party couldn’t run him out fast enough when he became a real threat.

 

[rockaction]

I don't think people realize just how good we have it, and that instability because of a blind hatred of politicians is unwise. Nobody need be a dupe, and politicians should be held accountable for their actions (they aren't right now), but the temptation to "burn it down" or "drain the swamp" evinces a sentiment that is at odds with a peaceful, representative democracy. Be the change you want to see by voting conscientious citizens and well-meaning people into office. Make them adhere to the rule of law and things will get much better than they are right now.

But our solutions seem to be to elevate strongmen who want to mess with voting protocols or placing an emphasis on "those who can get things done," a strategy and two personality types I find it unwise to vote for or promote. 

And right now, frankly, the Democratic party seems much more small "d" democratic than the Republican side. And this is from a nearly lifelong conservative. 

 

[pinkham13]

I don't think people realize just how good we have it, and that instability because of a blind hatred of politicians is unwise. Nobody need be a dupe, and politicians should be held accountable for their actions (they aren't right now), but the temptation to "burn it down" or "drain the swamp" evinces a sentiment that is at odds with a peaceful, representative democracy. Be the change you want to see by voting conscientious citizens and well-meaning people into office. Make them adhere to the rule of law and things will get much better than they are right now.

But our solutions seem to be to elevate strongmen who want to mess with voting protocols or placing an emphasis on "those who can get things done," a strategy and two personality types I find it unwise to vote for or promote. 

And right now, frankly, the Democratic party seems much more small "d" democratic than the Republican side. And this is from a nearly lifelong conservative. 

We certainly have it better than the Australians do. We have it better than Venezuela. But really for how much longer will we? Is the uni-party March towards Agenda 2030 all we have to look forward to?

 

[rockaction]

We certainly have it better than the Australians do. We have it better than Venezuela. But really for how much longer will we? Is the uni-party March towards Agenda 2030 all we have to look forward to?

While the ideological underpinnings of the current political landscape aren't the greatest distance apart in the world, they are distinct and different. You generally know which party a person votes for by how they speak, what issues they raise, what language they use. There is a distinct difference in party support among education types, rural/urban distinctions, and other characteristics that are predictive. 

Noting that certain legislation had bipartisan support does not make it a uni-party country. It means that, for a time, we were in agreement on certain fundamental issues. Whether those choices we made with bipartisan support were wise is another thing, but simple instances of bipartisanship (completely rare and almost unheard of in 2020) do not allow for simple allegations of a "one party" system to hold. 

In the democratic range of things, the parties are pretty different. No, if you're comparing us to monarchical or socialist countries, we're very much alike in our two parties, but I'm talking about our range of policies in a democracy. You find more differentiation here than in Western or Continental Europe, more variation than, as you note, Australia. We're a pretty diverse democracy in our party system. 

 

[Stealthycat]

biggest difference

• guns
  
• abortion
  
• recreational drugs
  
• border control
  
• military
  
• political correctness
  

 

[pinkham13]

biggest difference

• guns
  
• abortion
  
• recreational drugs
  
• border control
  
• military
  
• political correctness
  

These are the differences they say they are different on in public. Until recently in Texas I haven’t seen too much push back on abortion in actions. Guns they seem to differ on but I see red flag laws as the work around. These laws are supported in red and blue states on both sides of the aisle. Trump said take the guns first and serve them later.

Drugs have been a problem. I liken it to prohibition days. Capone thrived then like the drug dealers do now. Many on both sides want rational laws for both drug use and abuse. I like Portugal’s model. This SWAT team vs drug consumption and sales has to change.

Border control goes back to the drug problem. You can’t tell me we can have internet phones operate 24/7 but we can’t stop drugs from coming in. How have we not stopped this under any administration or any Congress?

Military. Both parties drop bombs like presents from Santa. No real difference. Join the global central bank world order or get “democracy bombs lobbed.” Libya, Iraq, Syria Serbia on and on.

PC whole lotta Pc going on for both sides. One side seems extreme but the other side just complains and it never changes. 

 

[The Commish]

These are the differences they say they are different on in public. Until recently in Texas I haven’t seen too much push back on abortion in actions. Guns they seem to differ on but I see red flag laws as the work around. These laws are supported in red and blue states on both sides of the aisle. Trump said take the guns first and serve them later.

Drugs have been a problem. I liken it to prohibition days. Capone thrived then like the drug dealers do now. Many on both sides want rational laws for both drug use and abuse. I like Portugal’s model. This SWAT team vs drug consumption and sales has to change.

Border control goes back to the drug problem. You can’t tell me we can have internet phones operate 24/7 but we can’t stop drugs from coming in. How have we not stopped this under any administration or any Congress?

Military. Both parties drop bombs like presents from Santa. No real difference. Join the global central bank world order or get “democracy bombs lobbed.” Libya, Iraq, Syria Serbia on and on.

PC whole lotta Pc going on for both sides. One side seems extreme but the other side just complains and it never changes. 

With some here, it's a sliding scale on whether they focus on words or actions.  And sometimes it's words one day and actions the next from the very same source.  First and foremost narrative needs to remain in tact.  

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

I don't think people realize just how good we have it, and that instability because of a blind hatred of politicians is unwise. Nobody need be a dupe, and politicians should be held accountable for their actions (they aren't right now), but the temptation to "burn it down" or "drain the swamp" evinces a sentiment that is at odds with a peaceful, representative democracy. Be the change you want to see by voting conscientious citizens and well-meaning people into office. Make them adhere to the rule of law and things will get much better than they are right now.

But our solutions seem to be to elevate strongmen who want to mess with voting protocols or placing an emphasis on "those who can get things done," a strategy and two personality types I find it unwise to vote for or promote. 

And right now, frankly, the Democratic party seems much more small "d" democratic than the Republican side. And this is from a nearly lifelong conservative. 

This. And I think we were still at this point until 1996 or so. Not to oversimplify, but that's about the time when Rupert Murdoch showed up.

We all need to dial it down, way down. I'll support candidates on either side that support democracy and toning down the rhetoric. It's a clown show folks, and it ain't funny. 

To the topic. The 1% is the same, and they use the wedge issues to divide ordinary Americans while they laugh and check their portfolios. 

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

biggest difference

• guns
  
• abortion
  
• recreational drugs
  
• border control
  
• military
  
• political correctness
  

This is exactly where they want you. "They" is the elite rich. Let the peasants fight it out. 

 

[Stealthycat]

These are the differences they say they are different on in public. Until recently in Texas I haven’t seen too much push back on abortion in actions. Guns they seem to differ on but I see red flag laws as the work around. These laws are supported in red and blue states on both sides of the aisle. Trump said take the guns first and serve them later.

Drugs have been a problem. I liken it to prohibition days. Capone thrived then like the drug dealers do now. Many on both sides want rational laws for both drug use and abuse. I like Portugal’s model. This SWAT team vs drug consumption and sales has to change.

Border control goes back to the drug problem. You can’t tell me we can have internet phones operate 24/7 but we can’t stop drugs from coming in. How have we not stopped this under any administration or any Congress?

Military. Both parties drop bombs like presents from Santa. No real difference. Join the global central bank world order or get “democracy bombs lobbed.” Libya, Iraq, Syria Serbia on and on.

PC whole lotta Pc going on for both sides. One side seems extreme but the other side just complains and it never changes. 

you misunderstand just how hard conservatives have fought over the decades on issues like abortion and guns and drugs

if we had it Democrats way, abortion anywhere, anytime with ice cream served and a ribbon and there would be very few guns and drugs would be for anyone, anywhere, anytime 

you've seen in 9 months the difference in border control from a GOP President to a DNC one :(

military, Democrats cut budgets, they don't want a strong military, GOP does

 

[Stealthycat]

This is exactly where they want you. "They" is the elite rich. Let the peasants fight it out. 

what is the breakdown in rich Democrats vs rich Republicans ?

50-50 split ? 60-40 Democrats ? 

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

you misunderstand just how hard conservatives have fought over the decades on issues like abortion and guns and drugs

if we had it Democrats way, abortion anywhere, anytime with ice cream served and a ribbon and there would be very few guns and drugs would be for anyone, anywhere, anytime 

you've seen in 9 months the difference in border control from a GOP President to a DNC one :(

military, Democrats cut budgets, they don't want a strong military, GOP does

You are a good and principled man. I submit to you to beware that you are being taken advantage of. 

 

[The Commish]

Not even putting bait on the hook anymore  

 

[pinkham13]

you misunderstand just how hard conservatives have fought over the decades on issues like abortion and guns and drugs

if we had it Democrats way, abortion anywhere, anytime with ice cream served and a ribbon and there would be very few guns and drugs would be for anyone, anywhere, anytime 

you've seen in 9 months the difference in border control from a GOP President to a DNC one :(

military, Democrats cut budgets, they don't want a strong military, GOP does

Yes border has gotten worse and I see that folks are down on this administration evidenced by many polls available.. Do I think it would be substantially different under the other guy? I seriously doubt it. Warp speed either way.

 

[Stealthycat]

You are a good and principled man. I submit to you to beware that you are being taken advantage of. 

we are all taken advantage of in some way or the other

no political party gives someone everything

no political party keeps all its promises

candidates don't either

when a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-border control Democrat runs I'll consider that candidate, but those 3 things Democrats are polar opposites of my views on

pro-life -   tides are turning, maybe the SC justices Trump put in will make a difference finally/eventually

pro-gun - we all know Democrats hate guns

border control / illegal - we can see right now the differences 

I'll continue to vote Republican on the above 3 issues - its better than voting Democrat

 

[Stealthycat]

Yes border has gotten worse and I see that folks are down on this administration evidenced by many polls available.. Do I think it would be substantially different under the other guy? I seriously doubt it. Warp speed either way.

what ?

look at the numbers - you can't possible think the actions of Biden hasn't resulted in massive illegals coming across - c'mon man

 

[matuski]

No significant differences whatsoever.

 

[Witz]

No. 

 

[dickey moe]

Both parties use the margins/extremes to sow discord for political advantage, but neither party is really interested in meaningfully limiting deficits, debt, or government power/influence in general.

 

[song]

Is the uni-party March towards Agenda 2030 all we have to look forward to?

um, yes, regarding governance.  but there are other things.  God, sex, drugs and music come to mind.  and i am very fond of food.