Given the reality that these two parties are likely to remain in power for a while, which do you prefer (or if you have a negative outlook, which is less bad) to have control of the executive or legislative branches of the federal government?
You mean I actually have to choose between the two? Isn't this the whole turd sandwich thing? I would probably vote for a truly moderate Republican as President... and for a Democrat as Representative.
You can abstain if you want, but I didn't give an option for an independent or 3rd party because none of them are realistic options for the near future.
This is how I see it. The Republicans are just crappy version of the Democrats. They offer all the same crap, just less of the good parts. It shouldnt be all that surprising that the GOP struggles to maintain an identity. Atleast when the DNC wizes on your leg they dont BS you and call it rain. If your going to go statist, dont screw around and embrace the master/slave relationship with government.
Both are flawed and stupid, but the Democrats present the potential for greater damage to the republic.
I think this is pretty cyclical and up for debate as well. A decade ago I would have argued the Democrats were the party lacking identity, when they wanted to oppose the Republicans while also lacking the will or courage to outright oppose the GOP on a lot of major foreign policy matters that came to dominate the political discourse in the early to mid 2000's. In the past 30 years, both parties have moved to the right of where they had previously been. I'd say the GOP's lack of identity that it's currently suffering from is more likely a blip. The Democrats suffer from frequent identity crises when out of power as well.
I prefer whoever is being the obstructionist of the day. I have so little faith in Washington to effect positive change, that anyone who brings the gridlock is fine with me.
I've identified closer with Democrats for quite some time now. The Republican Party seems to be intent to take us back to the 1800s and is so full of social regressives that it's nothing more than a caricature of itself. In addition, one of the cornerstones of Republican economic theory, "Trickle Down" economics, as proven itself as being an abject failure unless you consider consolidation of wealth and a shrinking middle class to be desired and maintainable. Then there's the fact that the Republicans are absolutely dying, and I mean this figuratively because I don't think anyone in the Bush Admin actually served in a combat role, to send us into an even more expensive and long-term war. The Republicans refuse to see how destructive most of their policies are and are willing to burn this country to the ground to prove that they know best.
Even if there were 100% Democrat or 100% Republican rule, we would continue on 99% of the same path we're on. There are significant theoretical distinctions between the parties, but there are no significant actual differences. There's more actual difference between Pepsi and Coke than between Republican and Democrat. That written, I find the theoretical ideas of the Republicans insignificantly less objectionable.
The greatest progress this country has made in the last 100 years has been during periods of Democratic control, it's greatest suffering has been the direct result of Republican policy. Moving forward, I think the best thing that could happen to the US, is for the Democrats to get supermajority status in congress, and hold the White House so they can move the progressive agenda forward and remove the vestiges of racism and elitism that the Republicans have embedded in the system.
We had some pretty decent progress under Eisenhower and Nixon, but there was a Democratic super majority during that time and those two Republicans would be to the left of democrats today.
That is why I advocate for a Democratic legislature and a moderate Republican presidency. The Democrats can push forward a progressive agenda, and the President makes sure it doesn't get out of hand.
I don't like either as they pretty much do the same thing. But the R's did send us into the biggest economic downturn the country has ever seen. 2X. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/71st_United_States_Congress
Those guys would not have been allowed in the GOP today. For one thing, Nixon not only created the EPA, he proposed "ObamaCare", although he didn't call it that. And Eisenhower, he called people who wanted to repeal entitlements "Stupid". - - - Updated - - - Those guys would not have been allowed in the GOP today. For one thing, Nixon not only created the EPA, he proposed "ObamaCare", although he didn't call it that. And Eisenhower, he called people who wanted to repeal entitlements "Stupid".
IMAGINE every person created equally. Every person his or her own President. Each man a King and every woman a Queen. You could tell the George Bushes and the Barack Obamas, the Bashar Assads and the King Abdullahs, to take their jobs and shove them, that you are emancipated, sovereign individuals. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC2waxMJ_5Y
The two (or ANY) parties will have certain positives/negatives... BECAUSE they are made up of HUMAN BEINGS. The people who are most civil and/or reside near the 'center'... are usually the ones wielding the better views.
Democrats (even tho' I'm not registered in any political party) they've always been for the working union man; Republicans would pick up from where Dubya left off and finish destroying our beloved country.
I think it's sad just how many of these responses have been bigoted. There's such a wide inability, or refusal to understand the politics of the other. I tend to support the Republicans for a few reasons. First, I look at politics and my first question to any proposal is, "how is that the government's job to do?" The Republicans are willing to make up some excuses, but for Democrats the only things they'll find that the government doesn't have the right to do is the things they don't like. I've never heard a Democrat say, " I'd love to do X but won't support it because it's unconstitutional. " The second reason is that Republicans actually care about debt reduction. It's good politics for Dems, they were very critical of Bush for having -a- deficit, but that's not based on principle. As soon as they had control it was deficit spending left and right. 2008-2010 is the first time in a long time we've seen the Democrats with full control of government. The Republicans aren't perfect, but they don't just use 'deficit reduction' as a political talking point, they actually care about debt reduction. Thirdly, the recent military conflicts and the politics have kind of galvanized me. The Democrats, to include Obama, played political games with things like body armor for troops. Now that they're in power they whine about the House not giving them a blank check (not giving them a blank check is what they call 'political games'), but before they were fond of playing games with body armor. And Obamas strategy in Afghanistan has been a disaster. Troops are dying at more than double the rate. It was well that most news outlets use to care about that under Bush, but they've been mum since Obama took office. A fourth is that my belief is that we should focus on work fare, helping people to become financially stable on their own, not just doling out cash. The GOP is closer to that. There are other reasons, but those are the main reasons.
With that attitude they are not, and we will continue the Bush/Obama/(insert here) presidency so long as that attitude continues.
North America is going to be here for a long time. Are you talking about "destroying our beloved" government?
That they have. But I think today the Democratic Party is more and more about intitlements. So much so it has broken this country. Many today don't want to take resposibility for their actions and want others to pay for it. That has never been the American way.