• 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!

What's the difference?

c0wardlyli0n

Banned
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
239
Reaction score
97
Location
Milwaukee Area, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Between the Democrats and Republicans, what are the differences between the two? I'm not talking about their campaign rhetoric but their actual real differences. What sweeping differences has there been between Bush and Obama?
 
Between the Democrats and Republicans, what are the differences between the two? I'm not talking about their campaign rhetoric but their actual real differences. What sweeping differences has there been between Bush and Obama?

Mainly just abortion-rights, gun-rights and LGBTQ-rights. Either way, one or the other is trying to screw you over by taking your [insert right here] away.
 
Between the Democrats and Republicans, what are the differences between the two? I'm not talking about their campaign rhetoric but their actual real differences. What sweeping differences has there been between Bush and Obama?
Not much.
The difference is in who the Party Members are and in what they believe to be best for the Nation.
 
Between the Democrats and Republicans, what are the differences between the two? I'm not talking about their campaign rhetoric but their actual real differences. What sweeping differences has there been between Bush and Obama?

You would be better served by investigating the two Party's platforms. These are easy to find on the internet.

Now...you seem to also be asking about differences between various people...in this case, Bush and Obama. The problem with that is that the person may not want to...or be able to...follow their Party's platform.

In my opinion, Bush and Obama HAVE pretty much attempted to follow their respective platforms...but the differences lie in the actions they've taken to achieve their ends.
 
Obama - Hates America and loves himself.

Bush - Loves America, thinks America is somewhere in Canada.
 
Between the Democrats and Republicans, what are the differences between the two? I'm not talking about their campaign rhetoric but their actual real differences. What sweeping differences has there been between Bush and Obama?

Unfortunately, the parties keep morphing. A better answer to your question can probably be found in a study of styles of governance and the ability of a general populace to sustain itself. In point, do I need a government to tell me to stop smoking so I won't kill myself and others around me, or am I smart enough and personally free enough to make those decisions for myself. Do I need a government to dictate the size of children's car seats, or do I care enough about my own kids to make those decisions for myself. Do I need a government to tell me that I must pay more taxes to pay welfare to the useless dregs of our society, or can I tithe at church and help our individual church outreach programs help the most needy in our own neighborhoods. There is a huge difference between a massive centralized government and localized pockets of private support and community involvement.

The Big Centralized Government model is very much like like the ones in Russia and China and other Communist countries. The Democrat party supports that concept. They believe that as a Big Centralized Government, they can regulate virtually all parts of your life. Some people call that the "Cradle to Grave" approach.

The Republican Party has traditionally believed in self determination and independence and an individuals ability to educate himself to a point where he can make sound, wise decisions for himself. Self reliance and a tenacious belief that you can make it on your own. Pride of place and purpose.

Democrats want you to become a communist. As such, you will hand over all that you have and and all that you are. In exchange, you will be cared for until you become obsolete.

Republicans want you to remain free, capable of making your own decisions and being a contributor to the common good. You can think of Republicanism as a big orchestra and chorus. With lots of practice and talent, you can and will make beautiful music.

The choice is yours. You can sit in a room in a big concrete building and look out the window...or you can make beautiful music.
 
Last edited:
Mainly just abortion-rights, gun-rights and LGBTQ-rights. Either way, one or the other is trying to screw you over by taking your [insert right here] away.

Abortion yes, but I'd debate the other two.

Remember, Bush supported tightening background checks and increasing the age of owning a gun to 21. Conservatives have gotten a lot more rigid in their refusal to have gun control of any kind, compared to the early 2000's. Bush would be considered downright liberal by a lot of them if he were president today. And with gun sales higher than ever, it's not like Obama's done anything to impede gun ownership in reality.

Obama did basically nothing to support LGBT rights. He remained gutlessly non-commital about SSM until the Supreme Court ruling and then rushed in to claim the glory. While it might be true that Bush wouldn't have approved it if it'd hit his desk, I'm not 100% certain Obama would have either if it'd been his first term and he had another election to win, so in real terms they weren't really any different.

Obama repealed DADT, yes, but you have to keep this in the context of the time. For its time, DADT was actually lauded as an improvement for gay people, even by some gay people, for a variety of reasons. A compromise, yes, and even at the time some disagreed that it was good enough, but still an improvement. I know a lesbian who served and welcomed DADT with open arms, back in the 90's -- it was protection from assault, as far as she was concerned. That was still sort of true in the earlier years of Bush's presidency.

Obama and Bush look a bit different on paper, when it comes to gun control and LGBT rights. In real terms, it's made very little difference.

Their greatest sins were actually in the same arena: their complete lack of respect for Americans' privacy or rights within the justice system, or any sort of transparency in their administrations. This is one of the few remaining areas where Republicans and Democrats tend to work together.

I've gotten to the point of realization that apart from military matters, who's president doesn't make all that much of a difference. Who's in Congress is far more important, and people seem to pay a lot less attention to that.
 
Last edited:
Abortion yes, but I'd debate the other two.

Remember, Bush supported tightening background checks and increasing the age of owning a gun to 21. Conservatives have gotten a lot more rigid in their refusal to have gun control of any kind, compared to the early 2000's. Bush would be considered downright liberal by a lot of them if he were president today. And with gun sales higher than ever, it's not like Obama's done anything to impede gun ownership in reality.

Obama did basically nothing to support LGBT rights. He remained gutlessly non-commital about SSM until the Supreme Court ruling and then rushed in to claim the glory. While it might be true that Bush wouldn't have approved it if it'd hit his desk, I'm not 100% certain Obama would have either if it'd been his first term and he had another election to win, so in real terms they weren't really any different.

Obama repealed DADT, yes, but you have to keep this in the context of the time. For its time, DADT was actually lauded as an improvement for gay people, even by some gay people, for a variety of reasons. A compromise, yes, and even at the time some disagreed that it was good enough, but still an improvement. I know a lesbian who served and welcomed DADT with open arms, back in the 90's -- it was protection from assault, as far as she was concerned. That was still sort of true in the earlier years of Bush's presidency.

Obama and Bush look a bit different on paper, when it comes to gun control and LGBT rights. In real terms, it's made very little difference.

Their greatest sins were actually in the same arena: their complete lack of respect for Americans' privacy or rights within the justice system, or any sort of transparency in their administrations. This is one of the few remaining areas where Republicans and Democrats tend to work together.

I've gotten to the point of realization that apart from military matters, who's president doesn't make all that much of a difference. Who's in Congress is far more important, and people seem to pay a lot less attention to that.

Well, you've certainly put it into perspective...

...its a lot worse than I thought.

They may as well be one party. :shrug:
 
Democrats want you to become a communist. As such, you will hand over all that you have and and all that you are. In exchange, you will be cared for until you become obsolete.

Republicans want you to remain free, capable of making your own decisions and being a contributor to the common good. You can think of Republicanism as a big orchestra and chorus. With lots of practice and talent, you can and will make beautiful music.

What a load of idiotic twaddle.
 
You would be better served by investigating the two Party's platforms. These are easy to find on the internet.

Now...you seem to also be asking about differences between various people...in this case, Bush and Obama. The problem with that is that the person may not want to...or be able to...follow their Party's platform.

In my opinion, Bush and Obama HAVE pretty much attempted to follow their respective platforms...but the differences lie in the actions they've taken to achieve their ends.

In my opinion, party platforms are generally thinly-veiled bull**** that neither party tends to govern by when given the chance.
 
There is no meaningful difference in practice. Both parties appear to behave about the same when they have power. There is a distinct difference between liberals and conservatives, however. Liberals see government as a solution to problems. Conservatives see the government as the source of problems.
 
Back
Top Bottom