• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This is what makes Republicans and Democrats so different

The comments coming from all sides suggest to me that few people went to Southern Dem's second link in the 1st comment. That's more of a "study" of the differences between the two parties than the very superficial and anecdotal MSNBC exercise could be. Some of the highlights of those differences to me is that republicans are doctrinaire with sticking to ideological "purity" being more important than compromise (i.e. doing actual job they're elected to do: govern). --see graphic labeled "figure 7" and attendant discussion. A corollary aspect to that difference explains why republicans are so thin on ideas for solving problems, i.e., making policy. Health care is a great example: republicans don't deny there are big problems with both the expense and accessibility of health care for too many citizens. But doing something about it requires policy making and that always brings the spectre of increased government involvement in some fashion. That's why their only current health care "policy" is to abolish Obamacare without having any plan of what to do after that. They know going back to the way it was before OCare would be an economic and health care catastrophe. But OCare really implemented all of what used to be the republican health care plan of the 1990s so they never had and still don't have a plan B. There are other interesting aspects to the differences: one of them is that many more dems consider themselves moderates than repubs and registered dems outnumber repubs. So if the repub party swings too far to the extreme right they will lose national elections every time. But any repub presidential candidate who isn't appealing to the extreme right isn't getting any kind of support right now. That's why the RNC is scared ****less of a Cruz or Trump nomination.
 
David_N said:
Not true at all. Democrats care about specific issues more then abstract things and sound bites. "BUILD THE WALL, STOP ISLAM, BAN THE MUSLIMS, DEPORT THE ILLEGALS, KILL OBUMMERCARE."
Social conservatives are plaguing the GOP and they want more then "national defense."
Click to expand...

Using vocal minorities to characterize a whole group isn't valid. Most of the specific policies I see most Republicans supporting on the domestic side have to do with enforcing the law and abolishing certain government programs.
 
digitusmedius said:
The comments coming from all sides suggest to me that few people went to Southern Dem's second link in the 1st comment. That's more of a "study" of the differences between the two parties than the very superficial and anecdotal MSNBC exercise could be. Some of the highlights of those differences to me is that republicans are doctrinaire with sticking to ideological "purity" being more important than compromise (i.e. doing actual job they're elected to do: govern). --see graphic labeled "figure 7" and attendant discussion. A corollary aspect to that difference explains why republicans are so thin on ideas for solving problems, i.e., making policy. Health care is a great example: republicans don't deny there are big problems with both the expense and accessibility of health care for too many citizens. But doing something about it requires policy making and that always brings the spectre of increased government involvement in some fashion. That's why their only current health care "policy" is to abolish Obamacare without having any plan of what to do after that. They know going back to the way it was before OCare would be an economic and health care catastrophe. But OCare really implemented all of what used to be the republican health care plan of the 1990s so they never had and still don't have a plan B. There are other interesting aspects to the differences: one of them is that many more dems consider themselves moderates than repubs and registered dems outnumber repubs. So if the repub party swings too far to the extreme right they will lose national elections every time. But any repub presidential candidate who isn't appealing to the extreme right isn't getting any kind of support right now. That's why the RNC is scared ****less of a Cruz or Trump nomination.
Click to expand...

The assumption that government is the solution for everything here is telling. No, a lot of Republicans don't have ideas for how the government could solve a lot of problems. That's because they don't think the government should be involved in those areas.
 
clownboy said:
Which shows that you just didn't read the article or the follow the link.
Click to expand...

I've already commented at some length on this source which was the not the primary basis for this thread. It is also not a study (as it also relies on polling for a good deal of its conclusions) but it's better than the MSNBC article which is what you were referring to since you were using its information to draw conclusions.
 
Last edited:
LowDown said:
The assumption that government is the solution for everything here is telling. No, a lot of Republicans don't have ideas for how the government could solve a lot of problems. That's because they don't think the government should be involved in those areas.
Click to expand...

And they don't have any workable non-governmental ideas for solving those problems either so consequently the problems are ignored, fester and become worse. I don't know how often we have to let "letting the private sector handle it" fail before we get that this is just ideological cant.
 
ocean515 said:
So the reporters seemed to learn that Democrats tend to think of themselves, and Republicans tend to think of the country.

I would find that difficult to disagree with.
Click to expand...

Well, of course because that's the self-serving way you always use to interpret everything.
 
digitusmedius said:
Well, of course because that's the self-serving way you always use to interpret everything.
Click to expand...

LOL

Always the brilliant posts so contributory to the topic at hand.

My comments were simply based on what was written in the OP.

The Democrats were reported to say something like, "I want paid family leave", "I want special medication", etc, etc..

The Republicans comments led the one reporter to claim: "There are fewer "I have a specific problem in my own life, and I’d like the government to do x about it" responses."

So my conclusion seems to be valid.

Your statement in response seems to be worthless.

:peace
 
David_N said:
Both conservatives and liberals don't care about shrinking the government, they want to use it for their own purpose.
Click to expand...

You say conservatives but what you meant was politicians.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:


Read more here: http://www.vox.com/2016/1/13/10759874/republicans-democrats-different

I think in general, this assessment is probably right. For example, just speaking of my personal ideology, I obviously vote Democrat more than I do Republican. Although I do vote for moderate Republicans in state and local elections. My motivations when I vote are not based on any real principles at all, but are instead entirely issue based. For example, I am big into backpacking, fishing, and trail running. I really enjoy spending time in the backcountry. So I always support candidates at the national level that are strong on conservation and public lands. Abstract concepts like principles really don't factor much into my voting.

I am a cyclist and bike to work often, so at the local level I support candidates that share my views on bike lanes, green-space, trails, and so on. Sure there are other issues I care about, but those are my main issues generally (and I realize the others might have completely different priorities).
Most of my conservative friends are much more motivated by more general principles when they vote. I am not saying there is anything right or wrong about the different motivations (specific issues vs general principles), but rather just pointing out the real differences in how those on the center left to left side of the political spectrum are wired up vs those on the center right to right side.

Anyway, what do others think? Lets try to avoid insulting liberals or conservatives in this one by stereotyping them with crap like: "liberals always vote based on what the government can give them in handouts" or "conservatives vote on ridiculous principles and are too stupid to realize the rice are getting over on them" or any crap like that.
Click to expand...



I am sorry, I gave it the best chance. But when he gets the wrong meaning for ideologue he shows he's out of his league. Both are one-sided, and cleverly re-enforce the Democrats over all talking points.

Here's the difference between the parties as I see it from here.

Democrats spend money and THEN create the plan. Republicans plan and then spend. Both use core ideology to maintain a presence, but neither has one other than obtain power and hang on to power,
 
I don't see a lot of differences. More surface. Scratch the paint and thinking in the similar.

I've voted about even numbers for both parties. I really don't care about a candidate's perceived ethics. If I did, then I'm probably being conned. I don't know the individuals. Edwards, a family man turns out to be a fake. Nixon a competent President, a liar. etc. There are also ethical leaders but we can't name them with any certainty.

So...I vote by who would keep us safe and get things done. Their motivation is irrelevent. What matters are results...competency. Turn up he clock back and I still would have voted for Nixon and Clinton, not for Bush Jr or Obama.

Most local and state politics is nitty gritty where to put dollars and resources. Federal politics is more image...groups supporting or not supporting a party for elusive reasons the way we support a sports team. A black in New York will vote Democrat, a white in Texas will vote Republican...not a lot different from being a Giants or Cowboy fan.
 
While I think it's hard to generalize, I do sort of agree with the sentiment. Liberals, at least in my experience, are out to make their own lives better, they are operating largely on a personal emotional level, they want the government to make things better for them and people like them. Conservatives, again just in my experience, want to make the nation better. They want to improve how competitive we are, how hard we work, how successful we are as a whole. Conservatives recognize that it is our own jobs to make our own lives better. We don't rely on anyone else to do it for us.

So yeah, I can go with that, at least in general.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Really?

OK, for the rest of the forum, please forgive me as this will be VERY ****ing boring.

I am a Liberal.

I have been a liberal all my life.

I am a member and worked for the Liberals in the last Canadian election where we WON, on going into debt to as much as 250 billion, installed 50% women in cabinet "because it's 2015" are legalizing pot across the country AND just because we are Canada, we taking in a MINIMUM of 25,000 Syrian refugees.

I was for same sex marriage since the late 90's, and have supported universal health care since it came in when I was 16 yrs old.

Now, rethink what you posted and try to squeeze into your brain that the "manifesto' IS liberal, but maybe it's your party that has become corrupt? Can you see that in the constant war for POWER, the Democratic party has surrendered what it stands for and thrown unsustainable spending at you to buy votes?

Call yourself whatever, but on the world stage the dems are socialists, and the worst variety as they seem to be making policy on a MacDonald's napkin
Click to expand...

Well, let's just go back to your original statement in some detail on the condition of liberalism from Johnson until today in the US today, shall we:

In the 60 years I have been watching and studying government, I would say the Conservatives have moved to the center.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where your source material for this study comes from but it sounds is if it's the RNC (I'm assuming you know what that is) propaganda. If your point is that the republican party is no longer conservative but extreme rightwing, you might have a point. Certainly past republican conservatives of the Dirksen, Eisenhower, Dole and even Reagan stripes of the past would be unwelcome in today's republican jungle. So, if you want to revise this comment, please feel free.

The Amerikan liberal movement, by contrast, have raced to the extreme of the left, embracing the ideas more in keeping with the socialists of today. From the same era "Ask not what your country can do for you, Ask what you can do for your country", Swearing ceremony of John F. Kennedy.
Click to expand...

Well, this is almost childlike in its assessment of what Kennedy meant in his inaugural address. Kennedy, by the way, was a hardline hawk and is responsible for the first major escalation of US involvement in Vietnam since Eisenhower sent in military "advisers" in 1954. But we'll get to that further down when we discuss your complete ignorance of liberals and that war further detail.
It was LBJ that started the "war on poverty" with the most aggressive socialist money hand out in north American history, a move that was a popular and nearly expensive of the equally in-effective 'war on drugs'. And, for the record, it was Jimmy Carter who first advanced the idea that making it real easy for people to buy homes, a move that had been pressed by the socialist NDP in Canada, which was looked at and laughed at a decade before.
Click to expand...

This is such a ragged and sophomoric distillation of the period of time from 1963 to 1980 that it seems laughable to have to knock it down. But that it comes from a Canadian who apparently loves his national health care and very generous (by comparison to US standards) welfare systems all brought to fruition by that very same NDP you so despise now is a pretty sour biscuit to chew. Could it be that the ignorance of your own political and social history is as great as it is of ours? And neither the term nor the concept of a "war on drugs" had anything to do with Lyndon Johnson just as none of the real estate crash had anything to do with Jimmie Carter's administration. Again, these are the sorts of unfounded allegations we're constantly subjected to from our homegrown rightwing lying apparatus so coming from someone who claims to be a "liberal" is rather funny.

The problem with the Amerikan left is they are so focused on their enemies they no longer know what they are, and become moribund as reactionaries. Something goes wrong, hand out money. 99 weeks unemployment benefits even choked the hardest of hard line leftists here.
Click to expand...

There's not really a point here but just a baseless rant; again a staple of the extreme right here in the US.

continued-->
 
continued, from above


No, if anything the Republicans have been drifting to the center in a very organic way.
Click to expand...
Well, actually this answers the question I had above that maybe you distinguished between conservatism as understood even up until Regan's administration as opposed to today. You've eliminated the one possibility of salvaging your ridiculous claims on that distinguishing point.

And as Goldwater was quoted earlier, I recall the liberals raked him over the coals on "bomb Hanoi" but LBJ was doing the same thing three weeks into his term.
Click to expand...
Goldwater did not just suggest bombing of Hanoi. He actually entertained the idea of using "low level" nukes to deforest Vietnam. That your "60 years" of observations somehow overlooked this rather important point is something only you can account for. And Goldwater's landslide loss was due to even much more than his extreme hawkishness, but I have a feeling those points would be wasted on you.

As for liberals and the Vietnam War, it's clear you have a major deliberately self-imposed blindspot as to the connection. Liberal opposition to the war began even before Johnson ran for his first term as president in 1964 and escalated exponentially in 1965 and each year after that until opposition from liberals and even conservative in Johnson's own party forced him to decide not to run for office in 1968. It was the liberal "hippie" left of the party that gave Eugene McCarthy the such strong initial support that really drove Johnson's decision. By the Summer of 1968 it wasn't just longhairs marching but tens of thousands of middle class men and women. Hubert Humphrey was largely defeated in 1968 because he would not foreswear his support for that war. So, a conservative Richard Nixon, whose campaign slogan that year was "those who've had four years to end this war should not be given four more," was elected and promptly escalated the air war you so detested far beyond Johnson and committed war crimes in doing so.


So, I can only conclude that you've created your own definition of what the word "liberal" means based mostly on your personal life style (do you really expect us to accept that your being gay and supporting gay rights including marriage or support for pot legalization are just "liberal"--you must either be completely ignorant of how Americans now think on those subjects or in isolated from all outside input in Vancouver). But thanks so much for giving me the opportunity to take your case apart piece by piece. It's one of my favorite things to do here.
 
digitusmedius said:
Well, let's just go back to your original statement in some detail on the condition of liberalism from Johnson until today in the US today, shall we:


I'm not sure where your source material for this study comes from but it sounds is if it's the RNC (I'm assuming you know what that is) propaganda. If your point is that the republican party is no longer conservative but extreme rightwing, you might have a point. Certainly past republican conservatives of the Dirksen, Eisenhower, Dole and even Reagan stripes of the past would be unwelcome in today's republican jungle. So, if you want to revise this comment, please feel free.



Well, this is almost childlike in its assessment of what Kennedy meant in his inaugural address. Kennedy, by the way, was a hardline hawk and is responsible for the first major escalation of US involvement in Vietnam since Eisenhower sent in military "advisers" in 1954. But we'll get to that further down when we discuss your complete ignorance of liberals and that war further detail.


This is such a ragged and sophomoric distillation of the period of time from 1963 to 1980 that it seems laughable to have to knock it down. But that it comes from a Canadian who apparently loves his national health care and very generous (by comparison to US standards) welfare systems all brought to fruition by that very same NDP you so despise now is a pretty sour biscuit to chew. Could it be that the ignorance of your own political and social history is as great as it is of ours? And neither the term nor the concept of a "war on drugs" had anything to do with Lyndon Johnson just as none of the real estate crash had anything to do with Jimmie Carter's administration. Again, these are the sorts of unfounded allegations we're constantly subjected to from our homegrown rightwing lying apparatus so coming from someone who claims to be a "liberal" is rather funny.



There's not really a point here but just a baseless rant; again a staple of the extreme right here in the US.

continued-->
Click to expand...



All your opinion.
 
The problem is too many variables. And what it means to individuals varies.
A very generalized outlook is usually:
Democrat - Liberal, Non-Religious, More Socialist Oriented, Progressive
Republican - Conservative, Religious, More Capitalist Oriented, Traditional

The truth is that most political "leaders" stray the lines when and where it suits them, especially once the campaigning is over.
 
I think the OP is right on.

the average GOP voter says "I have a problem what am I(myself) going to do about it."
the average Democrat voter says "I have a problem what is the GOVERNMENT going to do about it."

yes, that pretty much sums it up nicely. based on that one phrase you can figure a persons party affiliation with 100% accuracy. Good job!
 
Fearandloathing said:
Here's the difference between the parties as I see it from here.

Democrats spend money and THEN create the plan. Republicans plan and then spend. Both use core ideology to maintain a presence, but neither has one other than obtain power and hang on to power,
Click to expand...

OK, first off the article was about voters motivations, not the actions of politicians.

Secondly, how you see it is extraordinarily partisan.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Because what you posted is extremely partisan as are all your posts.
Click to expand...

I posted an article about how Democrats tend to vote on issues while Republicans tend to vote on principles and then asked other people's opinions imploring others to not insult the other side in doing so, and that is someone supposed to be partisan in your view??

You are the one that said "Democrats spend before they plan and Republicans plan before they spend" which has nothing to do with the thread topic, and which is a loaded partisan statement.
 
JoeTrumps said:
I think the OP is right on.

the average GOP voter says "I have a problem what am I(myself) going to do about it."
the average Democrat voter says "I have a problem what is the GOVERNMENT going to do about it."

yes, that pretty much sums it up nicely. based on that one phrase you can figure a persons party affiliation with 100% accuracy. Good job!
Click to expand...

Well that is how you may see it. I think its more like this:

Republican voter sees a problem and thinks: "What is the way to deal with this problem that fully adheres to conservative ideals"

Democratic voter sees a problem and thinks: "This is a problem that we can collectively deal with far better than we can individually try to deal with"

Neither point of view is right or wrong all the time, but rather shows how the two groups are wired up differently.
 
clownboy said:
wow, pot, kettle, black times infinity on this one. :lamo
Click to expand...

I realize you think that's clever (and is in your circle) but it's vapidity is basically a surrender to the facts. I accept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom