Republican vs Democrat

Dolby

Dolby

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
39,177
Reaction score
6,150
What is the difference?

Also - when was the last democrat President in power?
 
East Asia - McCain, traditionally the Republicans have saved and reconstructed S Korea and Japan, they're also more likely to want stronger trade ties.
China - Dems more likely to introduce protectionist measures in an environment of recession and more likely to look at Chinese human rights abuses. Reps - more for free and open trade.
Taiwan - more pro Rep as they are anti-Chinese.
Korea - afraid Dems will sink their trade agreement with US.
Western Europe - pro Obama, want more consultation in regards to US foreign policy and don't want to upset the Russians.
Easter Europe - afraid of Russian expansion, pro McCain.
South America - mix, left (Venezuela) pro Obama, Brazil and Mexico
may be pro-McCain, once again some free trade agreements in question.
Middle East - Israel and Saudi Arabia pro McCain.
Iran - pro Obama although they caught themselves out before,
they were against dealing with Carter, and when Reagan came he
was even tougher.
Russia - McCain would oppose and put an end to Moscow's expansionistic policies (eg think of Russian military base in Syria), so obviously Russia pro Obama.
 
Dolby said:
What is the difference?

Also - when was the last democrat President in power?
Click to expand...

Republicans are the Elephant Party.
Democrats are the Donkey Party.
Republicans are more Right Wing.
Democrats are more Left Wing.
Republicans are more conservative.
Democrats are more liberal.
Republicans are in favour of Big business and Military.
Democrats are in favour of Social Policy and International Dialog.

It's hard to compare them to our Political Scene in South Africa.... but the Democrats are closer to the ANC than the Republicans.
 
The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s as an anti-slavery movement based on the principles of liberty and quality for all, with minimal government. Its first conflict with the Democrats was over slavery - the Republicans believed slavery unjust and imhuman, the Democrats for the most part supported it. The first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln, who came to power in 1860, just before the Civil War.

Some history Dem-supporters don't know (go ahead and read it, if you have the guts - it's written by a black man!):
... Slavery is the greatest evil ever to beset black people in this country. In the decades leading up to the Civil War, there was intense political debate on what to do about it. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 for the express purpose of ending slavery. The Democratic Party, by contrast, defended it to the bitter end.

Just to show how far Democrats would go to defend slavery, it's worth remembering what happened to Sen. Charles Sumner, Republican of Massachusetts. After giving a speech denouncing slavery in 1856, he was viciously beaten by Rep. Preston Brooks, Democrat of South Carolina, for daring to question the right to own slaves. Being a coward, Brooks waited until the elderly Sumner was seated alone at his desk in the Senate and, without warning, struck him repeatedly with a cane. It took months for Sumner to recover.

In 1858, Sen. Stephen A. Douglas, Democrat of Illinois, debated Republican Abraham Lincoln on the question of slavery. Said Douglas during one of those debates: "For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any and every form. I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians and other inferior races."

So prevalent were these views in the Democratic Party that Douglas was named its presidential candidate in 1860. Amazingly, Southerners actually viewed Douglas as being too moderate on the slavery issue and instead voted for Vice President John C. Breckinridge, a slave-owner who also ran as a Democrat, thus splitting the pro-slavery vote and allowing Lincoln to win.

After the war, the Democratic Party held a lock on the South for more than 100 years. All of the "Jim Crow" laws that prevented blacks from voting and kept them down were enacted by Democratic governors and Democratic legislatures. The Ku Klux Klan was virtually an auxiliary arm of the Democratic Party, and any black (or white) who threatened the party's domination was liable to be beaten or lynched. Democrats enacted the first gun-control laws in order to prevent blacks from defending themselves against Ku Klux Klan violence. Chain gangs were developed by Democrats to bring back de facto slave labor.

President Woodrow Wilson, the second Democrat to serve since the Civil War, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913. Avowed racists such as Josephus Daniels and Albert Burleson were named Cabinet secretaries. Black leaders like W.E.B. DuBois, who had strongly supported Wilson, were bitterly disappointed, but shouldn't have been surprised. As president of Princeton University, Wilson refused to admit blacks and as governor of New Jersey ignored blacks' requests for state jobs, even though their votes had provided his margin of victory.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt had his first opportunity to name a member of the Supreme Court, he appointed a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama. In 1944, FDR chose as his vice president Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922. Throughout his presidency, Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching, and he opposed integration of the armed forces.

Another Ku Klux Klan member, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage. He is still a member of the U.S. Senate today. As recently as the 1980s, Sen. Ernest Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina, publicly referred to blacks as "darkies" and Hispanics as "wetbacks" without suffering any punishment from his party.

In short, the historical record clearly shows that Democrats, not Republicans, have been the party of racism in this country.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The history and roots of either party has absolutely no relevance to their modern-day incarnations.
 
Metal Gear!? said:
The history and roots of either party has absolutely no relevance to their modern-day incarnations.
Click to expand...
Really, hey? So much for history then. No more discussion.

If you're so cavalier about history and origins, then you obviously don't know or care how we got here. Or where we're going. Because only a view that encompasses history can make sense of the present, and project into the future.

I for one find history quite relevant to understanding the present. And that's on a personal, family, national, social and global level ... it all matters, in my view.
 
Arthur said:
Really, hey? So much for history then. No more discussion.

If you're so cavalier about history and origins, then you obviously don't know or care how we got here. Or where we're going. Because only a view that encompasses history can make sense of the present, and project into the future.

I for one find history quite relevant to understanding the present. And that's on a personal, family, national, social and global level ... it all matters, in my view.
Click to expand...

Well lets look at the war issue, something the Democrats are expressly opposed to. However, it was during the

When Woodrow Wilson (D) was president the USA entered WWI. Under Franklin Roosevelt (D) the USA enter WWII. During Harry Truman's (D) term in office the Korean war began and so did the Cold War. Both Kennedy (D) and his successor Lyndon B. Johnson (D) were responsible for the escalation of the situation in Vietnam to a war.

So historically it has been the Democrats that supported the war. However, in the last 30 years (since Nixon presidency) the trend has seen the Republicans become more pro-war and the Democrats anti-war. This was especially prevalent during the two Bush presidencies.

As such, a party can most certainly chance its stance over 30 years, never mind over 150 years.
 
Garyvdh said:
However, in the last 30 years (since Nixon presidency) the trend has seen the Republicans become more pro-war and the Democrats anti-war. This was especially prevalent during the two Bush presidencies.

As such, a party can most certainly chance its stance over 30 years, never mind over 150 years.
Click to expand...

Well the newly elected Dem VP voted for the Iraq war. In fact many Dems voted for the Iraq war.....
 
Arthur said:
Really, hey? So much for history then. No more discussion.

If you're so cavalier about history and origins, then you obviously don't know or care how we got here. Or where we're going. Because only a view that encompasses history can make sense of the present, and project into the future.

I for one find history quite relevant to understanding the present. And that's on a personal, family, national, social and global level ... it all matters, in my view.
Click to expand...

The founding ideals of the Republican party from the Lincoln days have nothing to do with how the party is run today. It was a completely different political climate and the ideals set out then are not reflected in the party today.
 
timgaul said:
However, in the last 30 years (since Nixon presidency) the trend has seen the Republicans become more pro-war and the Democrats anti-war. This was especially prevalent during the two Bush presidencies.
Click to expand...


Yep - them Democrats do like a good war and maybe the Republicans have grown a pair since Ronnie Raygun put the smack down on the evil empire. But old Bill was involved in the odd fracas himself.
 
alanf85 said:
Well the newly elected Dem VP voted for the Iraq war. In fact many Dems voted for the Iraq war.....
Click to expand...

Yeah, this was was a little odd. Most Senators voted in favour of the war. However, all but one Republican was pro-war - Ron Paul (who I personally believe should have been the GOP nominee). There was much more opposition from the Democrats. Honestly, I think a lot of people were angry and scared.
 
The alan distinction:

Democrat-like: Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mugabe, Satan, Castro, Chairman Mao, did I mention Mugabe, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe.

Republican-like: Jesus, Mother Theresa, GW Bush, God, all "decent" folks, The American Flag, Mom's Apple Pie.

;);)
 
timgaul said:
Yeah, this was was a little odd. Most Senators voted in favour of the war. However, all but one Republican was pro-war - Ron Paul (who I personally believe should have been the GOP nominee). There was much more opposition from the Democrats. Honestly, I think a lot of people were angry and scared.
Click to expand...

Not odd at all. Pure politics. The winds blew in favour of war so the Dems voted for it. The enemy *gasp* fought back, public opinion dropped and hey surprise, surprise the Dems suddenly were "lied too" and now are adamantly opposed to the war......


rwenzori said:
The alan distinction:

Democrat-like: Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mugabe, Satan, Castro, Chairman Mao, did I mention Mugabe, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe.;);)
Click to expand...

You forgot to add yourself. :D
 
rwenzori said:
The alan distinction:

Democrat-like: Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mugabe, Satan, Castro, Chairman Mao, did I mention Mugabe, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe.

Republican-like: Jesus, Mother Theresa, GW Bush, God, all "decent" folks, The American Flag, Mom's Apple Pie.

;);)
Click to expand...

Even though this may seem like a completely exaggerated parody of Alan's extremist views, it's pretty close to the truth. Alan really does seem to be a lost cause.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X