Democrats vs Republicans

The difference isn't as great as you think it is. They just hope idiots buy into that.

Michele Obama gave a terrific speech last night at the Democratic National Convention.

Tonight: Jill Biden.

In the words of the Reverend Lenny Wombat of the First Criminal Baptist Church of the Holy South: "He is say-eeved-uh! The Lord Gawwwd Alllmighteee-uhm placed him in office-uh! Ohhhhh......praise Jeeeezus-uh! Y'all that don't believe in Donald-uh Trump-uh are possessed by Beelzebub-uh and are goin' straight HAY-YULL-uh in a boxcar of coal to fire the inferno-uh of Satan! Whoahhhh-uhhh p-raze-uh Gawd Almighty-uh! "

Libertarians like to compare the government and its monopoly on use of force to a gun.

Well...

Republicans point the gun at the powerless.

Democrats point the gun at the powerful.

Libertarians drop the gun, confident that nobody else will pick it up.

Ben Reilly wrote:Libertarians like to compare the government and its monopoly on use of force to a gun.

Well...

Republicans point the gun at the powerless.

Democrats point the gun at the powerful.

Libertarians drop the gun, confident that nobody else will pick it up.

Correction

Republicans and Democrats point the gun at and maipulate the powerless.

Democrats and Republicans are adherant to the powerful (dependent of which power that is that follows their ideolog/beliefs)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=surb8FzjWfg

Didgee wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Libertarians like to compare the government and its monopoly on use of force to a gun.

Well...

Republicans point the gun at the powerless.

Democrats point the gun at the powerful.

Libertarians drop the gun, confident that nobody else will pick it up.

Correction

Republicans and Democrats point the gun at and maipulate the powerless.

Democrats and Republicans are adherant to the powerful (dependent of which power that is that follows their ideolog/beliefs)

Nonsense. They both work for the interests of their constituents. Democrats work for the general interest; Republicans work for the special interests.

Original Quill wrote:

Didgee wrote:

Correction

Republicans and Democrats point the gun at and maipulate the powerless.

Democrats and Republicans are adherant to the powerful (dependent of which power that is that follows their ideolog/beliefs)

Nonsense.  They both work for the interests of their constituents.  Democrats work for the general interest; Republicans work for the special interests.

False

They both work for the special interest of people

Its why they make statements on identities, to garner votes

They both play off vulnerable insecure people for votes. As they know they will get nowhere with rational people

They both play on what they perceive as those weak minded

Hence both only work for themselves and no the interest of anyone else

Nonsense. I've never seen a Tory or a Republican work for all of the people and I've never seen a Lib/Dem or a Democrat work for special interests. They have completely different political theories.

Original Quill wrote:Nonsense.  I've never seen a Tory or a Republican work for all of the people and I've never seen a Lib/Dem or a Democrat work for special interests.  They have completely different political theories.

1) Winston Churchill

2) Abraham Lincoln

Just two easy examples to disprove your claim

There are many morei

Churchill was busy with a war.

Abraham Lincoln was alive when the Republican Party had different, more humanist aims. The Progressive Party split off in the election of 1912, and since then the Republicans have been the party of special interests.

Original Quill wrote:Churchill was busy with a war.

Abraham Lincoln was alive when the Republican Party had different, more humanist aims.  The Progressive Party split off in the election of 1912, and since then the Republicans have been the party of special interests.

Churchill was busy with war working for the people

Abraham Lincoln again was a Republican, who worked for the people

Facts quill

Churchill was busy trying to get the US into the war. He practically lived at the White House in 1941.

Lincoln had a different Republican Party. Indeed, Jefferson had a vastly different Republican Party...even from Lincoln. Been a lot of changes, if you haven't noticed.

ta...

FACT!

1) So Churchill wanting allies, is not working for the British people to you?

Come again?

Lincoln was Republican. That is factual history. Views made off the past to align with political leanings of today are stupid and ignoring actual history. Its democrats desperately trying to make Lincoln become democrat

Today's Republicans ARE different. They are batshit crazy.

Didgee wrote:1) So Churchill wanting allies, is not working for the British people to you?

The issue is, was Churchill doing anything for the people. Churchill was trying to save his own skin. It the bigger picture, you could say it was the people's skin. But it was hardly a people's wing. He was also vehemently opposed to socialism.

Didgee wrote:Lincoln was Republican. That is factual history. Views made off the past to align with political leanings of today are stupid and ignoring actual history. Its democrats desperately trying to make Lincoln become democrat

Jefferson was Republican as well, and he ran against the Federalists. There have been several Republican Parties, and in 1854 the Republican Party that opposed slavery was not the Republican Party of today. The 1854 party was two parties, one advocating for progressive causes, including abolition of slavery, trust-busting and a women's vote. It was called the progressive wing. The party split it two in the election of 1912, because the conservative wing didn't support the trust-busting and was for special interests.

As a result of that split, the Republicans became the conservative Republican Party of today, and the Progressive Party, the latter being the anti-slavery group of the civil war.

Original Quill wrote:

Didgee wrote:1) So Churchill wanting allies, is not working for the British people to you?

The issue is, was Churchill doing anything for the people.  Churchill was trying to save his own skin.  It the bigger picture, you could say it was the people's skin.  But it was hardly a people's wing.  He was also vehemently opposed to socialism.

The issue here quill, is that you make up history as you go along and its not based on reality or facts

The facts are these

Churchill certainly worked for the people as did Lincoln, both conservatives

Didgee wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The issue is, was Churchill doing anything for the people.  Churchill was trying to save his own skin.  It the bigger picture, you could say it was the people's skin.  But it was hardly a people's wing.  He was also vehemently opposed to socialism.

The issue here quill, is that you make up history as you go along and its not based on reality or facts

The facts are these

Churchill certainly worked for the people as did Lincoln, both conservatives

Nonsense. Lincoln was a centrist, practical abolitionist. See, Goodwin, Doris Kearns, Team of Rivals: Te Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (2005). You sound like Redneck,..make it up as you go along.

Original Quill wrote:

Didgee wrote:

The issue here quill, is that you make up history as you go along and its not based on reality or facts

The facts are these

Churchill certainly worked for the people as did Lincoln, both conservatives

Nonsense.  Lincoln was a centrist, practical abolitionist.  See, Goodwin, Doris Kearns, Team of Rivals: Te Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (2005).  You sound like Redneck,..make it up as you go along.

Bullshit alert

He was a conservative in every sense of the word

Didgee wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense.  Lincoln was a centrist, practical abolitionist.  See, Goodwin, Doris Kearns, Team of Rivals: Te Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (2005).  You sound like Redneck,..make it up as you go along.

Bullshit alert

He was a conservative in every sense of the word

Can you argue that point? Or are you just a collector of the idea? Next you are going to argue that the Confederate States were lib-communists.

Lincoln was the father of the present-day income tax, bane of all conservatives. He also imposed tariffs and imposed a national inheritance tax. As one commentator says:

Politicopia wrote:Of course, both political parties were extremely different in 1860, and many of their views have shifted. It’s probably impossible to accurately guess which way President Lincoln’s policies would have fallen were he alive today, but his policies back then certainly didn’t run parallel to those of today’s Republicans. at all.

In addition to his anti-slavery beliefs, he wasn’t exactly for state rights (at least in practice). His use of federal power to keep the Union together and oppose slavery is why the Civil War started in the first place. He’s also the reason why tuition-free state schools became more popular in 1862, a phenomenon lasting until the 1960s. He opposed free trade. Lincoln was more moderate than anything else, and his policies shaped both social and political agendas for decades.

Didge, you should research the history of the Republican platform. It's changed radically over the past 70 years.

Ben Reilly wrote:Didge, you should research the history of the Republican platform. It's changed radically over the past 70 years.

Has It? I think Republicans just pretty much ignore their platform anymore.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Didge, you should research the history of the Republican platform. It's changed radically over the past 70 years.

Has It? I think Republicans just pretty much ignore their platform anymore.

Oh, it has. Back in the Eisenhower era, the GOP expressed pride over helping labor unions grow. Part of the reason the party opposed slavery back in the 1800s was over protecting laborers.

Only 12 years ago, the GOP platform addressed climate change. Now it's tabboo for a Republican to believe in climate change.

Ben Reilly wrote:Didge, you should research the history of the Republican platform. It's changed radically over the past 70 years.

Ben you should look up the definition of conservatism

This has not changed in the last 160 years

Original Quill wrote:

Didgee wrote:

Bullshit alert

He was a conservative in every sense of the word

Can you argue that point?  Or are you just a collector of the idea?  Next you are going to argue that the Confederate States were lib-communists.  

Lincoln was the father of the present-day income tax, bane of all conservatives.  He also imposed tariffs and imposed a national inheritance tax.  As one commentator says:

What I find pathetic is irrational democrats who wish to reinvent history to make Democrats not seem Conservative

When the Democrats of history were also conservative

There has been no liberal Democrat in the Presidency

When you compare to present day conservatism, which is far more liberal than the past. This shows you again fail to understand history

The fact is quill this is what your game is today as with many far leftist teachers

In brainwashing children with lies and distorting history and the meaning of terms

Luckily I am here to continually correct your stupidity

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Has It? I think Republicans just pretty much ignore their platform anymore.

Oh, it has. Back in the Eisenhower era, the GOP expressed pride over helping labor unions grow. Part of the reason the party opposed slavery back in the 1800s was over protecting laborers.

Only 12 years ago, the GOP platform addressed climate change. Now it's tabboo for a Republican to believe in climate change.

Waa that part of the platform, or just what certain Republicans did to try to garner some union votes from the Dems?

You might be right about climate change. And I'm not sure how long abortion has been part of the platform. Probably started in the 8Os. But I would say the basic tenants of the Republican party haven't changed much. The followers just change their minds with the whims of the president at the time.

I know folks who have helped write the state platform. Half the Republican voters out there dont agree with the platform or know what's in it.

Here's a pretty good examination of how the Republicans have changed since 1956:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1956-republican-platform/

Ben Reilly wrote:Here's a pretty good examination of how the Republicans have changed since 1956:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1956-republican-platform/

Snopes?

One moment

Didgee wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Here's a pretty good examination of how the Republicans have changed since 1956:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1956-republican-platform/

Snopes?

One moment

Scroll down in the article for numerous, lengthy, verbatim quotes from the 1956 Republican platform. They sounded like today's Democrats.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didgee wrote:


Snopes?

One moment

Scroll down in the article for numerous, lengthy, verbatim quotes from the 1956 Republican platform. They sounded like today's Democrats.

The poor point is you saying you have a good understanding of something, by linking to something not your own views

What you and the cretin Quill always do is attempt to distort history to your likely

Its blatantly absurd and shows up how you both fail to look at history objectively

You do so from a political bias

And this is from the 2008 Republican platform:

As part of a global climate change strategy, Republicans support technology-driven, market-based solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy.

To reduce emissions in the short run, we will rely upon the power of new technologies, as discussed above, especially zero-emission energy sources such as nuclear and other alternate power sources. But innovation must not be hamstrung by Washington bickering, regulatory briar patches, or obstructionist lawsuits. Empowering Washington will only lead to unintended consequences and unimagined economic and environmental pain; instead, we must unleash the power of scientific know-how and competitive markets.

And?

Republicans in general no longer accept that global warming is even happening, and addressing climate change is no longer part of their party platform.

Ben Reilly wrote:Here's a pretty good examination of how the Republicans have changed since 1956:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1956-republican-platform/

Republicans have supported a lot of government programs. In 1956 they supported them and a balanced budget. It's not that all governmnet programs are bad, but they need to be limited so they don't explode the debt. Eisenhower balanced the budget.

So while republicans supported spending in the past, they understood budgetary restraints.

In theory they still do. In practice they are no different than Dems, at least on the national level.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Here's a pretty good examination of how the Republicans have changed since 1956:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1956-republican-platform/

Republicans have supported a lot of government programs.  In 1956 they supported them and a balanced budget.  It's not that all governmnet programs are bad, but they need to be limited so they don't explode the debt.  Eisenhower balanced the budget.  

So while republicans supported spending in the past, they understood budgetary restraints.  

In theory they still do. In practice they are no different than Dems, at least on the national level.  

Unless you are gay, a woman, or a minority. Or if you have that annoying habit of needing health care while not being rich.

Or if you think we should listen to science and do something about global warming.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Republicans have supported a lot of government programs.  In 1956 they supported them and a balanced budget.  It's not that all governmnet programs are bad, but they need to be limited so they don't explode the debt.  Eisenhower balanced the budget.  

So while republicans supported spending in the past, they understood budgetary restraints.  

In theory they still do. In practice they are no different than Dems, at least on the national level.  

Unless you are gay, a woman, or a minority. Or if you have that annoying habit of needing health care while not being rich.

Or if you think we should listen to science and do something about global warming.

What laws do Republicans currently support that treat women, gays or other minorities differently?

The vast majority if Americans have some sort of health insurance without being rich. I do, and I'm definently not rich.

Republicans are divided on global warming. Part of the problem isn't admitting the existence of global warming, but identifying the best solution.

Stopping global warming is simple. Doing it while respecting people's rights and not starving half the planet to death isn't. Its not as simple a solution as sone would lead you to believe.

The best solution for global warming is reducing the number of people on the planet. Good luck with that.

Mussolini invented fascism and he was a socialist.

Tommy Monk wrote:


Mussolini invented fascism and he was a socialist.

He was such an ardent socialist, in fact, that he said:

"Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail."

Mussolini was a socialist before becoming a fascist.
Born to a socialist father, Mussolini was named after leftist Mexican President Benito Juárez. His two middle names, Amilcare and Andrea, came from Italian socialists Amilcare Cipriani and Andrea Costa. Early in Mussolini’s life, for instance, those names seemed appropriate. While living in Switzerland from 1902 to 1904, he cultivated an intellectual image and wrote for socialist periodicals such as L’Avvenire del Lavoratore (The Worker’s Future). He then served in the Italian army for nearly two years before resuming his career as a teacher and journalist. In his articles and speeches, Mussolini preached violent revolution, praised famed communist thinker Karl Marx and criticized patriotism. In 1912 he became editor of Avanti! (Forward!), the official daily newspaper of Italy’s Socialist Party. But he was expelled from the party two years later over his support for World War I.

Tommy Monk wrote:


Mussolini was a socialist before becoming a fascist.
Born to a socialist father, Mussolini was named after leftist Mexican President Benito Juárez. His two middle names, Amilcare and Andrea, came from Italian socialists Amilcare Cipriani and Andrea Costa. Early in Mussolini’s life, for instance, those names seemed appropriate. While living in Switzerland from 1902 to 1904, he cultivated an intellectual image and wrote for socialist periodicals such as L’Avvenire del Lavoratore (The Worker’s Future). He then served in the Italian army for nearly two years before resuming his career as a teacher and journalist. In his articles and speeches, Mussolini preached violent revolution, praised famed communist thinker Karl Marx and criticized patriotism. In 1912 he became editor of Avanti! (Forward!), the official daily newspaper of Italy’s Socialist Party. But he was expelled from the party two years later over his support for World War I.

Your first sentence is enough. He wasn't a socialist when he was leader of Italy.

Fascism was a form of hard line socialism... it was his idea of 'real socialism'... socialism with the authoritarianism that he believed it really needed...

Tommy Monk wrote:


Fascism was a form of hard line socialism... it was his idea of 'real socialism'... socialism with the authoritarianism that he believed it really needed...

You're just spitting words again. Private industries did VERY well under fascist regimes, addressing economic inequality didn't matter. Private industries thrived so long as they serve a militaristic national interest when called upon. This is the antithesis of socialism.

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Fascism was a form of hard line socialism... it was his idea of 'real socialism'... socialism with the authoritarianism that he believed it really needed...

You're just spitting words again. Private industries did VERY well under fascist regimes, addressing economic inequality didn't matter. Private industries thrived so long as they serve a militaristic national interest when called upon. This is the antithesis of socialism.

Are you a private industry when you serve who you are told?

Wouldn't that make slaves private contractors?

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Fascism was a form of hard line socialism... it was his idea of 'real socialism'... socialism with the authoritarianism that he believed it really needed...

You're just spitting words again. Private industries did VERY well under fascist regimes, addressing economic inequality didn't matter. Private industries thrived so long as they serve a militaristic national interest when called upon. This is the antithesis of socialism.

Are you a private industry when you serve who you are told?  

Wouldn't that make slaves private contractors?  

For the most part they were free to make massive profits. Worker ownership was nonexistent. Equality nonexistent. They weren't always doing as they were told either, only when needed. In a lot of not socialist countries industry was called upon in the case of war to serve the national interest, but we don't call every country socialist.

Ultimately though, a system where private individuals were free to make tonnes of money off the backs of workers who were paid little cannot be referred to as socialist.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Are you a private industry when you serve who you are told?  

Wouldn't that make slaves private contractors?  

For the most part they were free to make massive profits. Worker ownership was nonexistent. Equality nonexistent. They weren't always doing as they were told either, only when needed. In a lot of not socialist countries industry was called upon in the case of war to serve the national interest, but we don't call every country socialist.

Ultimately though, a system where private individuals were free to make tonnes of money off the backs of workers who were paid little cannot be referred to as socialist.

Ownership means you have a bundle of rights too. I dont consider nationalized systems like fascism to really have private ownership. I also dont think fascism is the same as socialism, even though both can be oppressive to people who support the private ownership of businesses.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Are you a private industry when you serve who you are told?  

Wouldn't that make slaves private contractors?  

For the most part they were free to make massive profits. Worker ownership was nonexistent. Equality nonexistent. They weren't always doing as they were told either, only when needed. In a lot of not socialist countries industry was called upon in the case of war to serve the national interest, but we don't call every country socialist.

Ultimately though, a system where private individuals were free to make tonnes of money off the backs of workers who were paid little cannot be referred to as socialist.

Ownership means you have a bundle of rights too. I dont consider nationalized systems like fascism to really have private ownership. I also dont think fascism is the same as socialism, even though both can be oppressive to people who support the private ownership of businesses.  

I think 'Nationalist' is a better word than 'nationalised' when describing fascism. Sure some services can be nationalised in fascism (as they are in capitalist social democracies in Europe), but the idea of everything being owned by the people/state doesn't exist in the same way.

I agree, they are not the same. Nearly all political ideologies can lead to oppression though, it is just a matter of who ends up being oppressed (in Victorian Britain it was the British working class, we've exported the oppression to sweat shops throughout the third world now).

Fascism at its core is an ideology based on promoting the nation above all else and supporting the 'establishment' (including corporate interests) who want to maintain traditions, strength etc. It differs from socialism in who is seeks to protect, how it deals with private ownership and its main goal (national superiority vs equality for the people).

I think fascism is awful. I also think socialism in its purist form is unworkable. But tommy conflating them is just another demonstration of lack of understanding on his part.

If any system which involves any amount of nationalisation, or regulation, is basically 'socialism' then every system but pure unrestrained capitalism is a form of socialism

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Ownership means you have a bundle of rights too. I dont consider nationalized systems like fascism to really have private ownership. I also dont think fascism is the same as socialism, even though both can be oppressive to people who support the private ownership of businesses.  

I think 'Nationalist' is a better word than 'nationalised' when describing fascism. Sure some services can be nationalised in fascism (as they are in capitalist social democracies in Europe), but the idea of everything being owned by the people/state doesn't exist in the same way.

I agree, they are not the same. Nearly all political ideologies can lead to oppression though, it is just a matter of who ends up being oppressed (in Victorian Britain it was the British working class, we've exported the oppression to sweat shops throughout the third world now).

Fascism at its core is an ideology based on promoting the nation above all else and supporting the 'establishment' (including corporate interests) who want to maintain traditions, strength etc. It differs from socialism in who is seeks to protect, how it deals with private ownership and its main goal (national superiority vs equality for the people).

I think fascism is awful. I also think socialism in its purist form is unworkable. But tommy conflating them is just another demonstration of lack of understanding on his part.

If any system which involves any amount of nationalisation, or regulation, is basically 'socialism' then every system but pure unrestrained capitalism is a form of socialism

Yeah, oftentimes, especially here, any form of regulation someone doesnt like is called socialism.

Socialism is social ownership. I'm actually not opposed as long as private ownership isn't banned. That's where the problem starts. Socially owned businesses and industries can't compete and they use the government to "help" them compete. Or they just ban private ownership. That's when I have a problem.

Les is confusing his own woolly idealistic view on what a nice happy clappy version of socialism 'should be'... with the reality of what socialism (and communism) really was back in the day...


He seems to be of the belief that all socialists are nice peaceful hippy type people who would rather sit round in a circle doing meditation and strumming guitars and playing bongos and making daisy chain necklaces for each other etc... And that anyone behaving in a more aggressive and authoritarianist way to enact their political ideals, must be somehow 'right wing' and nasty so not left wing/socialism at all...!


He clearly has no idea what he is waffling on about...