Dems vs Republicans: Why the Harsh Polarization?

[Nitrox]

Being from up north I sometimes raise an eyebrow because of how adversarial US politics can be. We have our share of crooks and dimwits in our political system but they are not so firmly and clearly divided.

Why can't a democrat support a 'conservative' economic initiative? After all, the US is THE free-market economy.

Why can't a republican support a 'liberal' personal freedom initiative? After all, the US is the land of the free...

 

[Rugger]

feed vs. fend

 

[Omen]

Being from up north I sometimes raise an eyebrow because of how adversarial US politics can be. We have our share of crooks and dimwits in our political system but they are not so firmly and clearly divided.

Why can't a democrat support a 'conservative' economic initiative? After all, the US is THE free-market economy.

Why can't a republican support a 'liberal' personal freedom initiative? After all, the US is the land of the free...

Agreed.

I used to be a hardcore republican, but I don't believe in everything they advocate.

-Pro guns
-Pro Military
-Pro abortion
-Pro legalizing soft drugs like amsterdam
-Pro stopping affirmative action
-Pro less government, less taxes
-Pro increasing standards for getting EBT/Food stamps (since most people I see use em for party foods and mixers.)
-Anti religion, anti teaching evolution, creationism or intelligent design in school.
-Pro not being able to trial former Military members in a civilian court.
-Pro harsher sentences for violent crimes, but abolish minimum sentences and at the same time, 100% of the time MUST be served, Death penalties to be carried out within 10 days.

Something like that for now.

 

[RobInKuwait]

An entrenched two party system is polarizing in nature. If you compare the US to many countries in Europe, the party platforms in the US are comprehensive and Europe are more single issue parties, which often ally with other parties.

Basically if I say, "I like tall chicks," then you say "I like short chicks", we've got all chicks covered and theres no room for a third party.

 

[Omen]

An entrenched two party system is polarizing in nature. If you compare the US to many countries in Europe, the party platforms in the US are comprehensive and Europe are more single issue parties, which often ally with other parties.

Basically if I say, "I like tall chicks," then you say "I like short chicks", we've got all chicks covered and theres no room for a third party.

Short, Average, Tall.

There's room for average height chicks, 5' 3" being the average female height in the US, what you covered is females significantly over 5'3" and females significantly under 5'3".

Who do you work for Rob?........

 

[RobInKuwait]

Short, Average, Tall.

There's room for average height chicks, 5' 3" being the average female height in the US, what you covered is females significantly over 5'3" and females significantly under 5'3".

Who do you work for Rob?........

The government.

 

[Omen]

The government.

What do you think about midgets?

 

[RobInKuwait]

What do you think about midgets?

I would love to do more than think about midgets!

:afro:

 

[Nitrox]

An entrenched two party system is polarizing in nature. If you compare the US to many countries in Europe, the party platforms in the US are comprehensive and Europe are more single issue parties, which often ally with other parties.

Basically if I say, "I like tall chicks," then you say "I like short chicks", we've got all chicks covered and theres no room for a third party.

Yeah I get that, but you could also say, "I like all chicks" and get twice as much action. 2x action is better than 1x action no?

Why do people have such a hard time getting past all the rhetoric and voting with their brains and not their emotions? Seems like the last few campaigns have been really good at playing peoples' heartstrings without taking positions that benefiting the majority. Kinda ends up that you guys get a government of the people, by the people, for SOME of the people...

 

[RobInKuwait]

Yeah I get that, but you could also say, "I like all chicks" and get twice as much action. 2x action is better than 1x action no?

I think I even lost myself on the chick metaphor. I can't even figure out what I was trying to say anymore, let alone what you mean

Why do people have such a hard time getting past all the rhetoric and voting with their brains and not their emotions? Seems like the last few campaigns have been really good at playing peoples' heartstrings without taking positions that benefiting the majority. Kinda ends up that you guys get a government of the people, by the people, for SOME of the people...

Guess it all depends on what you think will benefit you the most. I feel like by benefitting a minority (the rich) with tax cuts, you can benefit the majority with results. Aka trickle down economics.

 

[Fastone]

Which as we found out in 80's only sh!t trickles down. The Fat cats got fatter, remember Michael Milken




:bruce3:

 

[RobInKuwait]

Which as we found out in 80's only sh!t trickles down. The Fat cats got fatter, remember Michael Milken




:bruce3:

I'd say we did pretty good in the 80s. I don't think thats a valid argument to disprove trickle down economics.

 

[Fastone]

I'd say we did pretty good in the 80s. I don't think thats a valid argument to disprove trickle down economics.

You were a young child in the 80's, what do you really remember.

:bruce3:

 

[Omen]

You were a young child in the 80's, what do you really remember.

:bruce3:

:smite:

 

[Fastone]

:smite:

I remember that movie, cant feed them after midnight or get them wet:lol:

:bruce3:

 

[Dwight Schrute]

You were a young child in the 80's, what do you really remember.

:bruce3:

I remember it was much better than the 70's and Jimmy Carter. History books agree

 

[Fastone]

I remember it was much better than the 70's and Jimmy Carter. History books agree

At 35 you don't remember much from that time. Like you don't remember the mini recession of 71-75 and the 1st gas crisis, pre dating Jimmy Carter.

:bruce3:

 

[Dwight Schrute]

At 35 you don't remember much from that time. Like you don't remember the mini recession of 71-75 and the 1st gas crisis, pre dating Jimmy Carter.

:bruce3:

I remember a bit, but more importantly, my degree in history pitches in as well (seriously, read about Paul Volcker)

Either way, if I was there or not, the 70's were much worse than the 80's. The 80's for the first decade was a direct result of policies set in place a decade before and basically how Volcker forced the US into recession to basically save it.


BTW - As a Republican, it might surprise you that I tihnk this, but Reagan had very little to do with it just as Clinton had very little to do with the 90's. In fact, we would have been better off if both didn't tamper with the economy.

 

[Fastone]

I remember a bit, but more importantly, my degree in history pitches in as well (seriously, read about Paul Volcker)

Either way, if I was there or not, the 70's were much worse than the 80's. The 80's for the first decade was a direct result of policies set in place a decade before and basically how Volcker forced the US into recession to basically save it.


BTW - As a Republican, it might surprise you that I tihnk this, but Reagan had very little to do with it just as Clinton had very little to do with the 90's. In fact, we would have been better off if both didn't tamper with the economy.

You're probably right as we tend to look at eras based on certain names and faces in the forefront.

:bruce3:

 

[RobInKuwait]

You were a young child in the 80's, what do you really remember.

:bruce3:

When decade can I start talking about....1990, 2000? What an ignorant attitude. I guess by that reasoning talking about founding father's intent, the Civil War, The World Wars, and the Great Depression is all off limits in political discussions. :fool2:

Oh...and please, if you're going to try and discredit what I say based upon my age....add your own age to your profile. (NM....apparently you just did).

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Being from up north I sometimes raise an eyebrow because of how adversarial US politics can be. We have our share of crooks and dimwits in our political system but they are not so firmly and clearly divided.

Why can't a democrat support a 'conservative' economic initiative? After all, the US is THE free-market economy.

Why can't a republican support a 'liberal' personal freedom initiative? After all, the US is the land of the free...

Have you ever watched Parliament on C-SPAN Nitrox? Very entertaining.

 

[Nitrox]

Have you ever watched Parliament on C-SPAN Nitrox? Very entertaining.

Yes, for about 30 seconds. Kind of reminded me of Romper Room.

Point taken but it still seems to me that the divisions in US politics are wider and run deeper into its citizens. Do we have canadian equivalent to Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly? (Apologies to the republicans, I can't think of a high profile liberal mouthpiece atm)

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Yes, for about 30 seconds. Kind of reminded me of Romper Room.

Point taken but it still seems to me that the divisions in US politics are wider and run deeper into its citizens. Do we have canadian equivalent to Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly? (Apologies to the republicans, I can't think of a high profile liberal mouthpiece atm)

Oh no, we most definitely do not. I agree the political crevices are not as deep as in the US.

 

[Fastone]

When decade can I start talking about....1990, 2000? What an ignorant attitude. I guess by that reasoning talking about founding father's intent, the Civil War, The World Wars, and the Great Depression is all off limits in political discussions. :fool2:



Oh...and please, if you're going to try and discredit what I say based upon my age....add your own age to your profile. (NM....apparently you just did).

Btw, my age has been there since I came onto this site. As far as my original comment you said "I'd say we did pretty good in the 80s. I don't think thats a valid argument to disprove trickle down economics"

The fact is YOU don't REMEMBER the 80's relative to anything economic. I do remember the 80's quite well and remember the Wall Street "funny money" junk bond scandal that almost sunk us then. I also remember in 1970 when I graduated H.S., you could look in almost any newspaper and find a job in one day in as the war economy that had sustained us since the beginning of the "Cold War" was still in place. I also remember that it was a lot more difficult for folks in the 80's as a lot of those same companies that hired so many people in the 70's started letting people go as they moved their operations or reduced production, hence my comment

At least in J P's case he referenced specific historical data that validated his comment. There are times however when life experience contradicts history. And so it goes

:bruce3:

 

[RobInKuwait]

Btw, my age has been there since I came onto this site. As far as my original comment you said "I'd say we did pretty good in the 80s. I don't think thats a valid argument to disprove trickle down economics"

The fact is YOU don't REMEMBER the 80's relative to anything economic. I do remember the 80's quite well and remember the Wall Street "funny money" junk bond scandal that almost sunk us then. I also remember in 1970 when I graduated H.S., you could look in almost any newspaper and find a job in one day in as the war economy that had sustained us since the beginning of the "Cold War" was still in place. I also remember that it was a lot more difficult for folks in the 80's as a lot of those same companies that hired so many people in the 70's started letting people go as they moved their operations or reduced production, hence my comment

At least in J P's case he referenced specific historical data that validated his comment. There are times however when life experience contradicts history. And so it goes

:bruce3:

Obviously, how you view any particular decade hinges on where you were at the time and what you were doing. I based my statement on the popular perception of the 1980s being a time of economic growth in a changing world.

You inferred in your comment that it was self-evident that the 1980s disproved trickle down economics. I said I didn't think that argument was valid. I'd even argue that trickle-down economic has never actually been fully tested in this country.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

If we based success/failure on our own experiences, then I loved this one. Just saying

The first half of this decade was considering by most, extremely prosperous if we measure by economic numbers. As in all thing, it comes to an end as it did in the 80's and 90's.