A Question to Americans (Political)

[Revnak_v1legacy]

*snip*2) Teddy Roosevelt (REPUBLICAN) brought us into the Spanish-American war. American deaths: minimal.*snip*

Technically you are both right and wrong with that. He was one of the wars biggest supporters, but McKinley was president at the time.

Whoops, my mistake. Doesn't change the scorecard though.

No, it's just that I had recently covered that in history and felt like pointing it out to you. Also, it seemed like the guy that originally quoted you was only interested in the last sixty years, which still paints Democrats in a far worse light in my opinion. There is no conflict worse than Vietnam.

 

[Freaky Lou]

tbh @ all the Europeans in this thread criticizing American Politics based on cartoons and satire.

Republicans are not the caricatures you're thinking of them as. Their ideas did not come from their posteriors, nor do they all believe the same things as one another.

That being said, for some reason they've been appealing to the worst branch of their demographic for the past 15 years or so. Of all the brilliant and reasonable candidates they COULD be putting forward, they are intentionally putting on the worst face possible---and I'm not sure why, since the people they're pandering to would definitely never vote Democrat, and aren't that strong a demographic anyway.

 

[Zenn3k]

1) Abe Lincoln (REPUBLICAN) ended the worst thing to ever happen to America. The guy before him caused it to split in two, and the Confederacy started the war. Lincoln brought us back together. It was southern democrats who wanted to keep slavery as the status quo.

Actually, this should be counted as starting a war, technically. It was because Lincoln was elected that the south even decided to try and secede in the first place. Had the other guy won, they wouldn't have started the Civil war.

Should also be noted that around the time of 1950-1960, the two parties effectively "swapped" ideologies. We look into history and "democrats" had views in line with what we consider "republican" today, and vice versa.

EDIT: Removal of two extra uses of "in the first place" that seemed super redundant, lawl

 

[Wieke]

More wars were started by Democrats. FAR more soldiers died in Democrat wars.

Suggesting the democrats started the two world wars is more than a bit unfair. Last time I checked both wars had been going on for a while before the united states decided it would be in their best interest to intervene.

My post was in response to Rutger5000 saying that Republicans were the warmongers. It wasn't intended to debate the specifics of each war. If you want to have a nerdy war history debate about WW1 and 2, trust me, you found the right guy.

psst: everyone knows the US didn't *start* those wars. Even the dumbest among us. My point was to illustrate the outright untruthfulness of Rutger5000's post.

Fair enough, in light of your post some of the things he claimed do seem just false.

Granted I do get a bit of a warmonger vibe of the republicans (well except for Ron Paul). But that is probably because I've only become interested/aware of US politics during Bush junior's first election. And the republican rhetoric since Obama was elected (their claim that US healthcare was/is the best in the world and that the US shouldn't lower their military budget) has seemed somewhat antagonistic with regard to the rest of the world.

Then again the western world seems to be a fair bit more right wing the last couple of years. I mean it's the first time in about 30 years that the dutch government has been entirely right wing.

 

[TheIronRuler]

I've been wondering about the same thing.

From what I can tell from across the pond, it is really quite baffling that anyone would actually vote for that party.

I mean... they're presenting Rick Santorum as a legitimate candidate for president. That's just nuts.

.
Lots of people don't consume much media and information concerning what's happening in the USA. It's a very big place. They listen to what the Republicans say in their speeches, which are most of the time complete bullshit, spins or misdirection and take it as truth. Plus, The preacher said so.

 

[Macgyvercas]

I've been wondering about the same thing.

From what I can tell from across the pond, it is really quite baffling that anyone would actually vote for that party.

I mean... they're presenting Rick Santorum as a legitimate candidate for president. That's just nuts.

I live in the States and I still don't understand it. Hell, I used to be a Republican when I was young and stupid. I recently swtiched back to Republican solely to vote AGAINST Santorum in the primaries. After that, back to the Democratic party for me.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

1) Abe Lincoln (REPUBLICAN) ended the worst thing to ever happen to America. The guy before him caused it to split in two, and the Confederacy started the war. Lincoln brought us back together. It was southern democrats who wanted to keep slavery as the status quo.

Actually, this should be counted as starting a war, technically. It was because Lincoln was elected in the first place that the south even decided to try and secede in the first place. Had the other guy won, they wouldn't have started the Civil war in the first place.

Should also be noted that around the time of 1950-1960, the two parties effectively "swapped" ideologies. We look into history and "democrats" had views in line with what we consider "republican" today, and vice versa.

No, it did not change that quickly or that dramatically. They did not "swap." Over the course of fifteen years they adopted opposing views on civil rights, then the movement ended a handful of years later. It took the majority of the time the civil rights movement took place in for the Democrats to become the party of civil rights, then civil rights gained the acceptance of pretty much everyone a little while later. Otherwise there was no real change. Republicans had always had leanings towards big business and Democrats had always been bigger fans of entitlements. Progressivism became attached to the Democrats in FDR's time and certain levels of anti-war sentiments became associated with them through the new liberals and Carter, though it wasn't a big thing among the candidates until the later.

 

[Sean951]

Democrats had 2 distinct flavors in the post Civil War era. The Northern democrats, which morphed into the part of today, and the Southern Dixiecrats, who are the modern Religious right.

 

[renegade7]

Because they're very, very good at what they do. If they weren't good at manipulating people they would NEVER get a single vote.

The conservative message is based on one key ideology: Things were better in the past. 100 years ago that wouldn't have mattered. But now society is changing at a hitherto unprecedented rate. 60 years ago gay people were not distinguished from child predators. Black people could not vote. Women could not work. Scientific theories about the origins of Life, the Universe, and Everything were few, far between, and had little evidence to back them up yet (hint, the answer is 42).

So, here is what you need to understand. Many deeply religious people want to live their life like the Bible says. The Bible was written a long, LONG time ago. The world doesn't work like that anymore. So here comes Mr. Republican Candidate saying "America is on a cultural death spiral, vote for me and I'll fix all those problems." So they do.

Now, I actually think that anyone able to reach the upper echelons of politics is not a dumb person. I doubt very much that Romney and Santorum actually care a whole lot about social issues like gay marriage. But the fact is that if they refuse to address those they lose the popular vote, since for some unfathomable reason many people think it's okay to run a country based purely on ideology.

 

[Varanfan9]

Well I actually read an article on this. As it turns out most Americans like Democratic policies way better than Republicans. Its just that the average voter likes the Republican philosophy more. The idea of the good old simple America. So really they only get votes mostly due to misinformation of the public. If more people were politically aware of policies rather than image of their politicians the Republican party would most likely die out.

 

[direkiller]

3) Woodrow Wilson (DEMOCRAT) brought us into World War I. American deaths: 116,708

4) Franklin Roosevelt (DEMOCRAT) brought us into World War II. American deaths: 416,800

5) Harry Truman (DEMOCRAT) dropped 2 nuclear bombs on Japan. Then he helped star the Cold War. And then brought us into the Korean war. American deaths: 36,940

I did not know Democrats sank the Lusitania
or bombed Pearl Harbor(its not exactly something you can say they started)

as your not blaming Lincoln for starting the war but getting dragged into it why not the same for them.

few things aswell:
Spanish american war 3000 US died (it's past minimal)
Philippine-American War William McKinley(R) (1899)4,100 US

 

[Hawk eye1466]

Well both parties have their good and bad traits the problem is that in more recent years both sides have been digging their heels in and refusing to work together to stop the people from burning the senate down, I wish but the system is broken and won't be fixed because the people that want to fix it aren't in a position to do it and once they get to that position it's only after years of the normal political process which turns them from the normal person to someone who's only looking after themselves and then they won't change the system they set out to change because now their in that position and don't want to lose the power.

It's very stupid and pointless but that's politics!

 

[Easton Dark]

Not all Republicans are bad.

I'm just glad Romney kicked Santorum's shit campaign out. Any candidate that's promising to have their religious faith as a guide for everyone, that bastard isn't getting even a consideration for my vote. Republicans are the more likely party to have those kind of candidates, so... yeah, I don't like them very much, but not all are bad.

I could be ok voting for Romney, but... Democratic policies are better overall.

 

[juraigamer]

Republicans tend to get votes from old people, (ignorant) country folk, and their children.

The thing is, these people don't have the largest voices. When was the last time you saw old people, and I mean OLD, marching for something?

 

[Vigormortis]

Republicans now =/= Republicans during the Civil War. Our political parties have shifted back and forth throughout the centuries so trying to make that comparison now will only serve to confuse you more.

As for why they get votes? Republicans represent more than religious nujobs and societal stagnation. Many Republicans call themselves Republicans because they value capitalism and small government. You can make similar arguments to give the Democrats some credit too. Unfortunately many of the politicians on capital hill are all nutjobs and our broadcast media is full of morons, so its no wonder people get the wrong idea about our parties.

Honestly, I'm an independent that is socially liberal and economically conservative, so I don't really fall nicely into one camp or the other, and I don't think people should feel they have too anyway. I've always resented the two party system as it is far too polarizing and makes people feel the need to compromise their beliefs in order to fit into the mold of their party.

TL;DR Republicans look crazy on the news, but the politicians you see spouting garbage, whether they be Republican or Democratic, are hardly representative of everyone in their party.

Also, because someone mentioned them... I have more respect for the Libertarian Party than any other party in our system. I don't count myself as one of them, but I respect that they stand by their ideas and don't flip-flop when the chips are down. You know what they stand for and their is no bullshit to get in the way.

Fappy, my friend, you've said just about everything I was going to say. Hell, you even described your own political stance as I would have mine. Socially liberal and economically conservative.

I too detest the two party system. It creates far too large a divide in our government. Too much of a disconnect between the people of each group. It creates a sense of "You're either with us or with them."; as if there can be no other option. Frankly, the two party system is politically stifling. We really need to change that.

Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to further quote something you said simply because it bares repeating:

Republicans look crazy on the news, but the politicians you see spouting garbage, whether they be Republican or Democratic, are hardly representative of everyone in their party.

 

[Blow_Pop]

I don't think I'll ever understand republicans but I can safely say I've never voted for one. In fact in the 8 years I've been allowed to vote I've voted green party. Cause we've been fucked either way presidential candidate wise. Also,

from my understanding its 2 factors
1. barrack obama was a really shit president
2. republicans have the Christian (cough nut case cough) backing which is pretty big in MERICA

also its pretty much a choice of fucked or fucked (we have a similar choice in england every 4 years)

So, there's this thing called a Super Majority. In the past, most bills were passed when the majority of the senate (over 51) voted yes. Bills were filibuster very rarely. And when a filibuster was in place, over 60 votes were needed in order to pass a bill. Now, EVERYTHING is filibustered.

It isn?t so much that Obama is a bad president but it?s that Congress is broken.

It?s almost impossible for a bill to become law. There are other issues present, like the increasing direction of republican elected officials on positions considered extreme 10 - 20 years ago.

They are not bad people with evil motivations [insert joke here], but in order to get elected, you have to placate to the base. As a result, you don?t see any moderate or liberal Republicans in office anymore (see Olympia Snow, one of the last moderates in the senate leaving this year).

Many topics that both parties were in agreement about can?t work together because compromise now equals weakness. That makes the base angry and will lead to republican officials kicked out of office for be a ?Rino?, Republican In Name Only.

Even the most non-partisian events in the govenment is becoming increasingly partisan.

People get their news from more diverse sources. News radio and the Fox Network creates an echo chamber, so even if the "news" is false, it gets repeated often enough that core republican voters tend to believe this is the only true source of news. They can't trust news from any other source (ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC).

Add into the mix the unregulated contributions by rich individuals and corporations and the fact that most of elect officals' time are spent raising funds to be reelected, it's surprising anything gets done at all.

Most of the time the American Government works as a pentulum, swinging from one extreme to the next, finding balance through the checks and balances in place with the 3 estates.

Right now, the system is broken. There's no easy fix.

This^ a billion times this. Congress is a big part of what's broken. Also exceedingly religious people are more likely to vote conservative(republican) because it holds closer to what they believe. At least from what I've observed through talking to people.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Republicans tend to get votes from old people, (ignorant) country folk, and their children.

The thing is, these people don't have the largest voices. When was the last time you saw old people, and I mean OLD, marching for something?

Both parties get the majority of their votes from old people. Old people vote way more than everyone else. And you entirely missed the rich white man vote that stereotypes suggest they should get. My family is none of these of course, and I am one of the few non-Republicans we've got.

 

[SciMal]

Why is this party getting votes?

Latent Racism against the President, a lot of old/crotchety turkey-necks who can't adapt to the times, and the severe backlash against an incredibly liberal generation coming into their own.

When you push somebody between a rock and a hard place, they fight back. They sink into their beliefs with more conviction, and they make themselves louder.

Then you have organizations like FOX News who realized 20 years ago that "News" was boring and instead feed people "infotainment" and purposefully make their information in the "either they're against us or with us" type of format. They don't respect their audience as intelligent human beings, and the audience proves them right all too often.

It just seems, when i am looking at (for example) popular media from America, like tv series or music, then you could get the impression that everybody hates republicans.
But they still get many votes.

Part of the issue is that the Republican Party has driven itself so far into the Conservative camp that even moderate-Conservatives who were traditionally part of the Republican Party have been ridiculed. Some honestly believe they're at ideological (and theological) war with "Liberals" and can't recognize that their party was one of the more forward-thinking less than a century ago.

The other part of the issue is that Republicans, by a wide, wide, WIDE margin, are the ones getting involved in scandals and caught blatantly lying. Less than half of what has come out of the Republican candidates' mouths has been true, but since you have a large portion of the population who trust the news (mistake #1) or don't try to find other viewpoints (mistake #2) you get falsehoods taken as facts. Some people still believe the President wasn't born in the United States, and nothing anybody can ever do will convince them otherwise.

I hope anyone can tell me where i am wrong here, or what i am not seeing.

You're just not seeing the moderates caught up in all the divisive rhetoric. Most Republicans that are citizens and not politicians don't really believe most of what's spewing from the mouths of the morons trying to get elected. Unfortunately they're never covered in the news, so you don't see them. You can read between the lines, though, if you look at voter turn-out rates and talk to people.

 

[Nieroshai]

Here you uncover the nature of politics: Conservatives see Liberals as being just as backwards as they are seen by Liberals. I won't pour gas on the flame war by stating a preference, but it all comes down to differing beliefs on what is better for society. To lampoon Conservatives as backwards over-religious rubes and barely above the Amish and wanting to push Granny off a cliff (euthanasia and eugenics have long been a Democrat platform BTW) is intellectually dishonest, as is claiming all Liberals are godless commies who'd be fine living in George Orwell's 1984 or Huxley's Brave New World(despite the characters' literal worship of enterprise). My ultimate point is, no one knows for sure which side is right since neither side has ever been in power long enough to clearly see the long term effects of one side prevailing. Even economists disagree on which side works better.

 

[rangerman351]

The party is getting votes from biased people and those that Republican terms in office would benefit- i.e. the wealthier americans