Difference between Republican and Democrat

Post Reply New Topic

Umm.... I don't get it. I mean, the US didn't have to get involved in most world conflicts, and certainly has less need given the nuclear age, where any threat can have the crap bombed out of them.

Hrm... I doubt "any" threat could have the crap bombed out of it when it implies (unwilling) citizens. <.< And pulling out of actual conflicts would be pretty hard, seeing as you're already knee deep in them due to your engagements. o.O

http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/in ... althcareed



America is actually losing financially because of the lack of free health care.

May I remind you of the MAD concept or mutually assured destruction? Besides the fact the US market relies on mostly import/export, the fact is if we isolate ourselves, we become weaker. Second, if we drop nukes on people we don't like, a lot of countries are gonna shoot back because that is how the game is played, the only time the nuclear option would ever be played is direct nuclear threat, even after 9/11 Bush didn't the middle east, which is very surprising.

To answer the OP:

Republicans have this logo.


Democrats have this logo.

I really like the word logo. What happened, did the democrats forget to copyright?

Besides the libertarian party any other party here in america actually practice what they say in campaigns. Gerrymanerind, the Federal Reserve and so on.

I agree, Obama is not doing anything for gay-rights. Hell Goldwater done more back in the 1950's and 60's while in senate. i would be conservatively republican too if it wasn't for christian right-winged duschbags like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Dubya. I believe in a lot of what they are doing besides stuff following abortions and civil-rights. i also don't like all the violations pf the constitution and all the lying, secrecy and the down-right "lets just help our rich buddies and us" part of the party.

There is a huge difference between both parties in the realms of policies. Our country has always seen a difference within a couple of years after a party change.

I am merely giving the "threat" issue because conventional foes can be fought, while unconventional foes can't be anyway. So, MAD is all that is necessary with conventional foes.

Yeah, I didn't say that it isn't difficult, but that still does not undermine the ideal.


I know about MAD, that's the very principle I am invoking, and I invoked it for all nuke-holding nations, not the US, so I am not saying something normative, but rather something positive. If someone tries to mess with us, we have nukes. All that is necessary is that the threat is credibly made.

Libertarians are for the removal of tariffs and quotas.

That's why we DON'T drop nukes! After 9/11, there weren't any outright oppositional governments. The closest was Afghanistan, but frankly, the "war on terror" is an unconventional war that mainstream military forces cannot feasibly fight anyway, so invoking it seems rather pointless.

Look, I am not saying anything inherently ridiculous, but rather just bringing up the idea that US defense only requires nuclear deterrence, rather than the bloated defense budget and huge international scope that we operate on today. This does not seem like a very problematic statement given that many nations have nukes and many nations spend less on their military than the US.

The Libertarian party has never practiced anything, as they've never been in power. And they never will be.

True, but there is a few libertarian senators in senate that are trying to do what they can. Though you are right!! Oh I would also like to ask in your opinion what party done more for the american people and did it right.

When you're one guy with no power to actually do anything, it's a heck of a lot easier to be a man of principle.


Hm. I'd be more likely to point to individual Presidents. So, counting backwards in recent history... Clinton wasn't horrible, Nixon was pretty good until the scandals started hitting, and Eisenhower was pretty good, overall. Either party taken as a whole has more than enough bad apples to spoil the bunch. Right now in particular either party has too many problems.

I have to admit the only politicians that really screwed up were the liberal democrats and the religious right. Most moderate politicians like Nixon and Eisenhower did very well for this country.

You will have enemies - you will have interest outside your borders, just to keep trade lines open.



You just can be a economic power without a political and military one - this is precisely the process the EU is currently experiencing.

The main problem for me is there aren't really any Liberal politicians that can win - it's always between a moderate Democrat and a Right-wing extremist Republican.