[Goodii2Cutii]

Hi everyone!
After looking at the thread 'Who should be the next President?' I was actually confused what the difference between a democrt and republican. Please comment.
Thanx

[2026]

Democrats tend to be economically more conservative and/or socially more liberal, as oppose to an average Republican who is more likely to be an economic libertarian and/or social conservative.

[kashmir.noir]

Have you heard of www.google.com?

[The West Wing]

Broadly speaking:

Democrats:

Bigger government
More active involvement in the economy
Promotion of civil rights, race-based legislation
Environmentally friendly
Supportive of abortion rights and access
Supportive of sex-equality legislation
Against the death penalty
Support for affordable health-care
Against prayer in school
Supportive of limits on availability of guns
Against invading countries in the name of promotion of democracy

Republicans:

Low taxes
Limited government intervention
Against gun control
Against access to abortion
Supportive of death penalty
Against race-based legislation
Agasint universilsation of health care
Against environment-based legislation
Support prayer in school
Support invading countries in order to promote democracy

[2026]

Originally Posted by The West Wing

Broadly speaking:
Democrats:

Bigger government
More active involvement in the economy
Promotion of civil rights, race-based legislation
Environmentally friendly
Supportive of abortion rights and access
Supportive of sex-equality legislation
Against the death penalty
Support for affordable health-care
Against prayer in school
Supportive of limits on availability of guns
Against invading countries in the name of promotion of democracy

Republicans:

Low taxes
Limited government intervention
Against gun control
Against access to abortion
Supportive of death penalty
Against race-based legislation
Agasint universilsation of health care
Against environment-based legislation
Support prayer in school
Support invading countries in order to promote democracy

No points for guessing which party you support lol.

[robinson999]

democrat are pro choice, and republican pro life, i think
democrats are more liberal
republican more conservative, apart when it come to economic
i think

[The West Wing]

Originally Posted by facebook

No points for guessing which party you support lol.

Huh? I tried to be fair

[Goodii2Cutii]

actually i have heard of google dimwit. this is my first thread, i was kinda testing it. 'adored and respected member' SHUT UP, get outta here.
brat
P.S. THNX WESTWING + FACEBOOK!!!!!

[yaf]

i tend to think as it in a broad sense of our conservatives are a bit like american republicans and our labour is a bit like their demcrats .i realise that it doesnt always work this way but in general

i think i have it the right way round its being awhile since i thought this one through

[2026]

Originally Posted by The West Wing

Huh? I tried to be fair

Lol, I'm just yanking your chain.

Its just that the list came off a bit anti-Republican. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I despise the social conservative base of the Republican party. Maybe the Republicans are just so horrible that even when an objective observation is made, they come off bad lol [that's a silly joke by the way - in case a Republican wants to take offence].

[2026]

Originally Posted by yaf

i tend to think as it in a broad sense of our conservatives are a bit like american republicans and our labour is a bit like their demcrats .i realise that it doesnt always work this way but in general

i think i have it the right way round its being awhile since i thought this one through

I largely agree.

Although its worth noting that while one can make a Republican/Conservative, Democrat/Labour comparison, both the Conservatives and Labour are significantly to the left of the Republicans and the Democrats.

The modern Conservative party, which is like our Republican party, would be more in line with the Democrats in the US, and Labour would be concerned far-left in the US, while here in the UK we consider it centre-left.

[Made in the USA]

Originally Posted by The West Wing

Broadly speaking:

Democrats:

Bigger government
More active involvement in the economy
Promotion of civil rights, race-based legislation
Environmentally friendly
Supportive of abortion rights and access
Supportive of sex-equality legislation
Against the death penalty
Support for affordable health-care
Against prayer in school
Supportive of limits on availability of guns
Against invading countries in the name of promotion of democracy

Republicans:

Low taxes
Limited government intervention
Against gun control
Against access to abortion
Supportive of death penalty
Against race-based legislation
Agasint universilsation of health care
Against environment-based legislation
Support prayer in school
Support invading countries in order to promote democracy

That's not very accurate because a lot of democrats and republicans don't fit that mold. For example, Rudy Giuliani, a republican running for president, is for gun control, abortion-rights, and gay rights. Bill Richardson, a democrat running for president, is the most gun-friendly candidate from either party at this point. He has has publicly stated that he holds a concealed carry permit! And I'm pretty sure most republicans don't support prayer in schools.

[Nikuhiru]

Originally Posted by facebook

I largely agree.

Although its worth noting that while one can make a Republican/Conservative, Democrat/Labour comparison, both the Conservatives and Labour are significantly to the left of the Republicans and the Democrats.

The modern Conservative party, which is like our Republican party, would be more in line with the Democrats in the US, and Labour would be concerned far-left in the US, while here in the UK we consider it centre-left.

The social scale in the States is shifted to the right moreso than in the UK. The comparison between Labour/Tories and Democrats/Republicans does hold, although in terms of alignment the Tories tend to be fairly similar with the Democrats. I remember speaking to Alan Duncan MP and he said that during the '04 elections that some Tory party members were over in the States helping the Democrats to campaign.

[Made in the USA]

Originally Posted by yaf

i tend to think as it in a broad sense of our conservatives are a bit like american republicans and our labour is a bit like their demcrats .i realise that it doesnt always work this way but in general

i think i have it the right way round its being awhile since i thought this one through

It doesn't work that way. Tories are like democrats (liberal on social issues and support a free market economy) and you have absolutely nothing like the republican party in British politics.

[The West Wing]

Originally Posted by Made in the USA

That's not very accurate because a lot of democrats and republicans don't fit that mold. For example, Rudy Giuliani, a republican running for president, is for gun control, abortion-rights, and gay rights. Bill Richardson, a democrat running for president, is the most gun-friendly candidate from either party at this point. He has has publicly stated that he holds a concealed carry permit! And I'm pretty sure most republicans don't support prayer in schools.

Well obviously. Parties play a much lesser role in America and it's hard to make blanket statements; but as general principles those are what they tend to believe in.

Rudy is very special, as is Ron Paul; they use the Republican label despite digressing greatly from "traditional" viewpoints.

[HJV]

Originally Posted by The West Wing

Broadly speaking:

Democrats:

Against invading countries in the name of promotion of democracy

Republicans:

Support invading countries in order to promote democracy

Actually, I'd say both are in support of invading countries in order to promote democracy. The republicans are just less subtle about their actual intentions.

[mhsc]

Both of them sound crap. Don't you have anything in the middle? "The Moderates"?

[The West Wing]

Originally Posted by mhsc

Both of them sound crap. Don't you have anything in the middle? "The Moderates"?

America is a 2-party system. Third parties there are totally crappy and stand no chance of getting any ECVs. It's all about best-fit, broad-umbrella when it comes to voting.

[Made in the USA]

Originally Posted by HJV

Actually, I'd say both are in support of invading countries in order to promote democracy. The republicans are just less subtle about their actual intentions.

Some of the loudest cries for going to war were from the American left. They only switched sides when it became trendy to do so and hoped the public wouldn't remember what they said prior to the war in Iraq. So far it seems to be a good strategy because they had a good election in 2006.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

[HJV]

Originally Posted by The West Wing

ECVs

Erm, "ECVs"?