A Question to Americans (Political)

[Aprilgold]

Mainly that Republicans appeal whole to the nutty Christians in America. You know the ones. The dudes that wanted to see Barrack Obama's Birth Certificate to make sure he wasn't a Iranian sleeper agent, which later we'll find out that Iran wasn't the correct person to go to war with. Republicans appeal heavily to the one percent and to the dumbest people in order to get more votes to back their own, personal agenda.

Honestly, its a whole bunch of issues why were fucked up right now, one of the ones being that compromise = weakness so no one will back down on a issue unless they want booed from the floor. If your going to have Political Parties, just add in a neutral one so that both sides are forced into compromising instead of being rocks that don't move for change.

Republicans get a ton of votes because of rather old people who listen to fox news is the gist, and rather gullible people fall for it too.

The notion that we Republicans want regressive change is a popular misconception. We just want small government that doesn't play Robin Hood with our tax dollars. A few social programs for those who desperately need them are ok (Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged can tell you all about why the welfare state sucks so bad), but other than that, we're more or less strict constitutionalists. We do tend to give corporations a bit of slack, but why not? Our economy is dependent on big business. The top 1% employs almost everyone else. When they pay fewer taxes, they hire more workers, who spend their wages on stuff. Everybody wins. The impression I frequently get from liberal policies is that they shoot the leaders in the foot to try to let stragglers catch up. That's no fun- everyone just finishes last.

We get votes because we make up about half of the country- We're just unpopular in the media because pretty much every Hollywood actor except Mickey Rourke is radically liberal. Plus, GW Bush was so unpopular that Obama turned into a celebrity just for being a Democrat. We are, however, popular among people who have been around long enough to have shaken off their naive idealism and seen just how much of their paycheck is sent to the government every month.

Of course there are the few that actually are neat people and sometimes break some sense into the others. But not always. Please, Deathmegeddon, be more loud with your views so that the extremely crazy people can understand it.

 

[dyre]

No offense, but your take on history is extremely simplified and biased from the oversimplification. And there's a difference between warmongering and fighting just wars. FDR was not a warmonger for bringing us into World War 2. McKinley was a warmonger for instigating the Spanish-American war (though actually, that was not so much his fault as it was the yellow press and warmongering members of his administration, notably Teddy Roosevelt).

However, you are correct that historically, Republicans have not necessarily been warmongers. Eisenhower preferred sabotaging other people's governments rather than invading them, and Nixon pursued detente while his democratic predecessors chose war with the communists. But it must be said that in the recent decade, Republicans (besides Libertarians) seem to be more into war than Democrats.

edit: I'm not the same guy as that direkiller fellow, even though he has a rather similar username.

My "take on history" hasn't been stated. All I did so far was list most of the wars in which America has participated, and the political affiliation of their respective presidents to prove that pinning the warmonger stigma on Republicans was foolish. I never stated that Democrats were the sole warmongers, I simply stated that rutger5000's original post was patently false. If you want my "take on history," you'll get more than you bargained for.

Hmm, now that I've read rutgers5000's nonsense-filled post, I retract my previous comment and apologize. Though, he did say "last 60 years," which excludes everyone before Truman, possibly including Truman. Not that it would make a difference in terms of which party are warmongers.

 

[Saw767]

(This post wasn't intended to be this long, sorry, oh well, lol)
Well, I find the notion of having political parties to be out of touch in itself. What it does is create threads like this one, where sides are created and views are passed on how one party reacts in relation to the other and who is less batshit than the other. Both sides want power, both sides want attention, and both will take your admire your viewpoint only long enough for you to cast your vote. Both are...well...insane. Whether you agree with either party on an issue, it doesn't matter: at the end of the day, the issue is there and the representative has gone home to watch TV and sleep.

Ideas matter more than who had a good or bad one, because...that idea is the only one you know that that the person has, who knows what else they'll do...They could be certifiable...(looks at Michelle Bachmann and cringes) or could be too worried about "innocence" (looks at the democrat who went after GTA: San Andreas with that damn lawyer because of some hacked polygon-dry humping).

Identifying parties creates lines and the more lines we draw, the more bullshit we tend to see from both about the opposition. What has happened is that we turned the hall of discussion and ideas that was Congress into a Wal Mart with less parking... Lobbyists are everywhere, every cantidate has an ad campaign: We now sell our own representatives to ourselves, and news networks take sides and waste time talking about shit from the cantidate's dog to their Ipod playlist.

When it comes down to identifying a solution...I am at a loss. Certainly if we as a people had put our energy to use, we would have most of this partisan shit mopped up by now. A government and their policies is a complex reflection of our culture. People need to pay attention and question every damn thing they see and hear from their leaders. There is no real solution, and don't go looking for one, we'll figure out how to manufacture brains before you find an answer to this mess.

On a side note, I am an analytical member of the world community first, and an American citizen second.

 

[rutger5000]

*snip*Sorry for the long quote. I haven't mastered the art of proper quoting yet. I only want to reply on the war mongers myth. I'm sorry to say, but it's easily comfirmed (just did it in 5 minutes) that it's true, depending on your definition of war monger. War monger might be a bit excesive. But it can easily proven that in the last 60 years by far the most wars the USA participated in started when there was a republican president. Now to call them warmongers for that is indeed a bit extreme. But if preventing war is your main concern, you ought to vote democratic.

In the last sixty years there hasn't been a war and two of the five major military conflicts began under Democrats (Korea and Vietnam were Truman and LBJ respectively while the gulf wars were both the Bushs and Afghanistan was Bush Jr.). In recent years you have a small piece of a point, in that Neocons tend to support larger military budgets, but both parties are absurdly pro-military in the greater scheme of things.

Vietnam war started on 01-10-1955, Dwight Eisenhower was president from 20-01-1953 till 20-01-1961, Dwight Eisenhower was a republican president. Ergo the Vietnam war bagan under Republicans. Source wikipedia.
Korean war as I recall did start under a democratic president as I recall. I'll add though that I think (I'm by no ways sure) that the war escallated because a specific American general didn't want to halt his progress at reaching the Yalu River. Since that border form the border between China and Korea it's not that strange the Chinese joined the fray. I have no source which can proof said General can be blamed for it, since I don't even know who that General is. But I'm not entirely convinced that the escillation of the war can be regarded as LBJ responsibility.

 

[rutger5000]

Sorry for the long quote. I haven't mastered the art of proper quoting yet. I only want to reply on the war mongers myth. I'm sorry to say, but it's easily comfirmed (just did it in 5 minutes) that it's true, depending on your definition of war monger. War monger might be a bit excesive. But it can easily proven that in the last 60 years by far the most wars the USA participated in started when there was a republican president. Now to call them warmongers for that is indeed a bit extreme. But if preventing war is your main concern, you ought to vote democratic.

Huh? This is flat out untruthful. Where did you get your information? Here's a little American history. Follow along and keep score with me.

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.

2) William McKinley (REPUBLICAN) brought us into the Spanish-American war. American deaths: minimal.

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

6) Lyndon Johson (DEMOCRAT) brought us into the Vietnam War. American deaths: 36,940

7) Richard Nixon (REPUBLICAN) ended American participation in the Vietnam War. American deaths: 58,269

8) Ronald Reagan/George HW Bush (REPUBLICANS) Brought the Cold War to an end. American deaths: 0. Not a shot fired.

9) George HW Bush (REPUBLICAN) brought us into operation Desert Storm. American deaths: minimal.

10) Bill Clinton (DEMOCRAT) brought us into the bosnia conflict. American deaths: minimal.

11) George W Bush (REPUBLICAN) brought us into the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. American deaths: about 5000.

12) Barack Obama (DEMOCRAT) brought us into the Libya conflict.

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

Uh uh, you didn't read my post well enough. I specifically said the last 60 years. Everything before the end of WWII is excluded. As of where I got my information: I cross reverenced a list of American wars and American presidents. Both lists I obtained from wikipedia.
Also in what way does the Libian conflict resembles a war (from the American point of view). As far as I'm concerned all you did was provide airial support to the rebels.
As a final remark. I think it's kind of scarry that the only information you added to the wars was the number of American deaths.

 

[algalon]

We're in Libya? When did this happen?

As far as American support of the Republican mindset, latest polls show those days are past. Republican approval ratings are hovering right around our current unemployment rate - 9% or so. I'm sure there's a statistic somewhere that can attribute current support to a certain level of mental retardation or other cognitive learning disorder.

 

[rapidoud]

?Washing one?s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.
[Paulo Freire]

This applies to all non-voting Americans, and they cannot whine about any parties if they choose not to vote.

 

[lokun489]

They represent things staying the same and as people do not like change people vote for them.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

*snip*Sorry for the long quote. I haven't mastered the art of proper quoting yet. I only want to reply on the war mongers myth. I'm sorry to say, but it's easily comfirmed (just did it in 5 minutes) that it's true, depending on your definition of war monger. War monger might be a bit excesive. But it can easily proven that in the last 60 years by far the most wars the USA participated in started when there was a republican president. Now to call them warmongers for that is indeed a bit extreme. But if preventing war is your main concern, you ought to vote democratic.

In the last sixty years there hasn't been a war and two of the five major military conflicts began under Democrats (Korea and Vietnam were Truman and LBJ respectively while the gulf wars were both the Bushs and Afghanistan was Bush Jr.). In recent years you have a small piece of a point, in that Neocons tend to support larger military budgets, but both parties are absurdly pro-military in the greater scheme of things.

Vietnam war started on 01-10-1955, Dwight Eisenhower was president from 20-01-1953 till 20-01-1961, Dwight Eisenhower was a republican president. Ergo the Vietnam war bagan under Republicans. Source wikipedia.
Korean war as I recall did start under a democratic president as I recall. I'll add though that I think (I'm by no ways sure) that the war escallated because a specific American general didn't want to halt his progress at reaching the Yalu River. Since that border form the border between China and Korea it's not that strange the Chinese joined the fray. I have no source which can proof said General can be blamed for it, since I don't even know who that General is. But I'm not entirely convinced that the escillation of the war can be regarded as LBJ responsibility.

Our part of the Vietnam conflict only became important in LBJ's term. I have no idea where you got the idea that it was a major American conflict before then, especially considering that Eisenhower was definitely not the type to enter such a crazy war guns blazing and all. The man's foreign policy was in no way perfect, but Vietnam was beyond him. We wouldn't have really done anything if he hadn't lied his way into the war. LBJ was among the most terrifyingly hawkish presidents there ever was and thousands of Americans and Vietnameze paid the price for it. I loathe that man to an almost irrational degree. Vietnam was quite clearly his war though. And I'll agree that McArthur (I believe that is how his name is spelled) was a moron, but the real escalation was all thanks to China, with the general being largely ignored. Truman, a fair bit of a war monger himself, was president during the Korean war.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Its amazing how little people actually understand republicans. Just like you have a wide range of democrats, theres a wide range of republicans too.

Please keep in mind that the american two party system actually forces together a lot of groups that wouldn't otherwise be together. A large number of republicans believe that the federal government has too much reach, and state governments should be left to do everything that isn't specified in the constitution. Consider that europe is largely modeled after america, (though the european system is, admittedly, shit) where you have a lot of semi-autonomous countries that are tied together in one economic system. This is the way that many people view the states-- so when a bunch of rhode islanders get together and say that everyone has to live like they say they should, the north dakotans balk. And rightly so. What many on the left need to remember is that what might be right for you might not be right for some.

Example: I have republican leanings, but am independent. I do NOT believe in universal federally mandated healthcare. America is too fucking big for universal, national health care. There is no way to support it. let each state come up with their own system that works for each individual state. many states have. Some of them are good. If the system sucks, theres a lower barrier to changing things on a state level than on a national level.

Everyone always prattles on about how canada has this great system. Super-- they've got a smaller population than california. So do a lot of other countries that cover a radically smaller geographical area. And our current push for health care is a mess, and might not even be constitutional, so you might start to see the problems of scale.

Now, one thing that is right: the anti abortionists and religious nutjobs do flock to this party. They would have their own party in another country. They must be pandered to but never be allowed to set more than minor policies. Minority voting blocks are quite powerful in this country-- consider that the disenfranchised evangelical that votes 99% republican is akin to the disenfranchised minority that votes 99% democrat.

Europe (Continent) is modelled largely after America (Continent) - False. However, if we are to rewrite that like what I think you were 'trying' to say.

European Union is modelled after the United States of America. Would still be false (However I can see how a person like you might see it as such, being a right-wing american and all), the European Union as you see it now is merely an expanded form of how it started, which was basicly just an advanced trading agreement between a couple of countries on the continent. America started out very differently, however I wont started educating you on the past history of your own country. What happened was a natural progress and had nothing to do with 'modelling' it after something else. Now mind you some people does want a United States of Europe. However it would still largely be based on an expanded version of what we have now, and not at all the heavily flawed undemocratic system of the current United States.

Also, European countries doesnt share the same economy/currency. That statement is just stupid. As such I think you have thrown away any credibility (On your knowledge of the Union anyway) You stated a heavily simplified version that was 'wrong' Its like you didnt even read the Wikipedia article. Just made a wild guess, and then went on to say how shit it was. Very mature *slow clap* im sure you see the united states as something great. Although personally I prefer my home.

*Walks away*

I'll be over here enjoying my equality and freedom. *Que le trollface*

 

[rutger5000]

*snip*Sorry for the long quote. I haven't mastered the art of proper quoting yet. I only want to reply on the war mongers myth. I'm sorry to say, but it's easily comfirmed (just did it in 5 minutes) that it's true, depending on your definition of war monger. War monger might be a bit excesive. But it can easily proven that in the last 60 years by far the most wars the USA participated in started when there was a republican president. Now to call them warmongers for that is indeed a bit extreme. But if preventing war is your main concern, you ought to vote democratic.

In the last sixty years there hasn't been a war and two of the five major military conflicts began under Democrats (Korea and Vietnam were Truman and LBJ respectively while the gulf wars were both the Bushs and Afghanistan was Bush Jr.). In recent years you have a small piece of a point, in that Neocons tend to support larger military budgets, but both parties are absurdly pro-military in the greater scheme of things.

Vietnam war started on 01-10-1955, Dwight Eisenhower was president from 20-01-1953 till 20-01-1961, Dwight Eisenhower was a republican president. Ergo the Vietnam war bagan under Republicans. Source wikipedia.
Korean war as I recall did start under a democratic president as I recall. I'll add though that I think (I'm by no ways sure) that the war escallated because a specific American general didn't want to halt his progress at reaching the Yalu River. Since that border form the border between China and Korea it's not that strange the Chinese joined the fray. I have no source which can proof said General can be blamed for it, since I don't even know who that General is. But I'm not entirely convinced that the escillation of the war can be regarded as LBJ responsibility.

Our part of the Vietnam conflict only became important in LBJ's term. I have no idea where you got the idea that it was a major American conflict before then, especially considering that Eisenhower was definitely not the type to enter such a crazy war guns blazing and all. The man's foreign policy was in no way perfect, but Vietnam was beyond him. We wouldn't have really done anything if he hadn't lied his way into the war. LBJ was among the most terrifyingly hawkish presidents there ever was and thousands of Americans and Vietnameze paid the price for it. I loathe that man to an almost irrational degree. Vietnam was quite clearly his war though. And I'll agree that McArthur (I believe that is how his name is spelled) was a moron, but the real escalation was all thanks to China, with the general being largely ignored. Truman, a fair bit of a war monger himself, was president during the Korean war.

As you might have guessed, I'm not a scholar of American history. History is nothing but a mere hobby of mine. Therefor I won't argue with you, you very well might be right about both wars. But since I trust wikipedia more then random strangers I'll still have to hold on to the believe that the vietnam war started with a Republican president. However it did last rather long, so maybe it isn't far to blame it on one president.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

*snip*Sorry for the long quote. I haven't mastered the art of proper quoting yet. I only want to reply on the war mongers myth. I'm sorry to say, but it's easily comfirmed (just did it in 5 minutes) that it's true, depending on your definition of war monger. War monger might be a bit excesive. But it can easily proven that in the last 60 years by far the most wars the USA participated in started when there was a republican president. Now to call them warmongers for that is indeed a bit extreme. But if preventing war is your main concern, you ought to vote democratic.

In the last sixty years there hasn't been a war and two of the five major military conflicts began under Democrats (Korea and Vietnam were Truman and LBJ respectively while the gulf wars were both the Bushs and Afghanistan was Bush Jr.). In recent years you have a small piece of a point, in that Neocons tend to support larger military budgets, but both parties are absurdly pro-military in the greater scheme of things.

Vietnam war started on 01-10-1955, Dwight Eisenhower was president from 20-01-1953 till 20-01-1961, Dwight Eisenhower was a republican president. Ergo the Vietnam war bagan under Republicans. Source wikipedia.
Korean war as I recall did start under a democratic president as I recall. I'll add though that I think (I'm by no ways sure) that the war escallated because a specific American general didn't want to halt his progress at reaching the Yalu River. Since that border form the border between China and Korea it's not that strange the Chinese joined the fray. I have no source which can proof said General can be blamed for it, since I don't even know who that General is. But I'm not entirely convinced that the escillation of the war can be regarded as LBJ responsibility.

Our part of the Vietnam conflict only became important in LBJ's term. I have no idea where you got the idea that it was a major American conflict before then, especially considering that Eisenhower was definitely not the type to enter such a crazy war guns blazing and all. The man's foreign policy was in no way perfect, but Vietnam was beyond him. We wouldn't have really done anything if he hadn't lied his way into the war. LBJ was among the most terrifyingly hawkish presidents there ever was and thousands of Americans and Vietnameze paid the price for it. I loathe that man to an almost irrational degree. Vietnam was quite clearly his war though. And I'll agree that McArthur (I believe that is how his name is spelled) was a moron, but the real escalation was all thanks to China, with the general being largely ignored. Truman, a fair bit of a war monger himself, was president during the Korean war.

As you might have guessed, I'm not a scholar of American history. History is nothing but a mere hobby of mine. Therefor I won't argue with you, you very well might be right about both wars. But since I trust wikipedia more then random strangers I'll still have to hold on to the believe that the vietnam war started with a Republican president. However it did last rather long, so maybe it isn't far to blame it on one president.

They may be counting the French part of the conflict, or considering the war from the perspective of the Vietnamese. Either way, we didn't enter the war until LBJ started sending ships to the coast and having them keep firing until the North Vietnamese fired back so he'd finally have an excuse to deploy way more troops. Technically we had troops there for years, but it wasn't a real conflict for us until then.

 

[The Rainmaker]

To be fair...republicans are pretty shit, yeah. I don't mind that they are religious, but church and state should definitely be separate. Speaking as a communist, though, I believe I'm a bit bias when it comes to the republicans. Even though any sane person should be against them, as their oppression of homosexuals and their pro-life politics are retarded.

 

[Nikolaz72]

OT: Republicans needs a reset. Even their 'moderate' candidates are still anti-homosexual anti-abortion anti-healthcare and yada-yada-yada. The Moderates tends to vote for Democratic presidents nowadays anyway, the only things they have left is the anarchistic pipedream and the unification of church and state. Both equally stupid (Alright, one massively more stupid than the other) And their massive spending on military made in order to keep friendly with the weapons manufacturers doesnt help either.

 

[Erttheking]

Ugh, glad to see that generalization doesn't fail to cross the seas. A small list of Republican beleifs as another person pointed out.

Republicans
>Large religious backing
>Conservative budgeting philosophy
>Emphasis on small government (see conservative budgeting philosophy)
>Emphasis on personal rights (self-defense/home-defense)
>Pro-firearm
>Pro-military/defense budget

Notice the lack of "kill brown people"

 

[rutger5000]

*snip*Sorry for the long quote. I haven't mastered the art of proper quoting yet. I only want to reply on the war mongers myth. I'm sorry to say, but it's easily comfirmed (just did it in 5 minutes) that it's true, depending on your definition of war monger. War monger might be a bit excesive. But it can easily proven that in the last 60 years by far the most wars the USA participated in started when there was a republican president. Now to call them warmongers for that is indeed a bit extreme. But if preventing war is your main concern, you ought to vote democratic.

In the last sixty years there hasn't been a war and two of the five major military conflicts began under Democrats (Korea and Vietnam were Truman and LBJ respectively while the gulf wars were both the Bushs and Afghanistan was Bush Jr.). In recent years you have a small piece of a point, in that Neocons tend to support larger military budgets, but both parties are absurdly pro-military in the greater scheme of things.

Vietnam war started on 01-10-1955, Dwight Eisenhower was president from 20-01-1953 till 20-01-1961, Dwight Eisenhower was a republican president. Ergo the Vietnam war bagan under Republicans. Source wikipedia.
Korean war as I recall did start under a democratic president as I recall. I'll add though that I think (I'm by no ways sure) that the war escallated because a specific American general didn't want to halt his progress at reaching the Yalu River. Since that border form the border between China and Korea it's not that strange the Chinese joined the fray. I have no source which can proof said General can be blamed for it, since I don't even know who that General is. But I'm not entirely convinced that the escillation of the war can be regarded as LBJ responsibility.

Our part of the Vietnam conflict only became important in LBJ's term. I have no idea where you got the idea that it was a major American conflict before then, especially considering that Eisenhower was definitely not the type to enter such a crazy war guns blazing and all. The man's foreign policy was in no way perfect, but Vietnam was beyond him. We wouldn't have really done anything if he hadn't lied his way into the war. LBJ was among the most terrifyingly hawkish presidents there ever was and thousands of Americans and Vietnameze paid the price for it. I loathe that man to an almost irrational degree. Vietnam was quite clearly his war though. And I'll agree that McArthur (I believe that is how his name is spelled) was a moron, but the real escalation was all thanks to China, with the general being largely ignored. Truman, a fair bit of a war monger himself, was president during the Korean war.

As you might have guessed, I'm not a scholar of American history. History is nothing but a mere hobby of mine. Therefor I won't argue with you, you very well might be right about both wars. But since I trust wikipedia more then random strangers I'll still have to hold on to the believe that the vietnam war started with a Republican president. However it did last rather long, so maybe it isn't far to blame it on one president.

They may be counting the French part of the conflict, or considering the war from the perspective of the Vietnamese. Either way, we didn't enter the war until LBJ started sending ships to the coast and having them keep firing until the North Vietnamese fired back so he'd finally have an excuse to deploy way more troops. Technically we had troops there for years, but it wasn't a real conflict for us until then.

That does make a lot of sense. Espescially that French part. Then I'll need to drop my earlier statement and admit I was wrong. To claim that the USA has started way more wars under Republican Presidents then under Democratic ones, while two out of the 5 last major conflicts started/escellated under Republican presidents is indeed fair. I should research deeper when making such claims.