Dems vs Republicans: Why the Harsh Polarization?
- 09-20-2008, 01:23 AM
Dems vs Republicans: Why the Harsh Polarization?
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...
- 09-20-2008, 01:49 AM
09-20-2008, 01:54 AM
I used to be a hardcore republican, but I don't believe in everything they advocate.
-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.
09-20-2008, 02:12 AM
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.
09-20-2008, 02:17 AM
09-20-2008, 03:12 AM
09-20-2008, 03:37 AM
09-20-2008, 03:41 AM
09-20-2008, 11:20 AM
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...
09-20-2008, 04:40 PM
09-20-2008, 05:13 PM
Which as we found out in 80's only sh!t trickles down. The Fat cats got fatter, remember Michael Milken
09-20-2008, 05:21 PM
09-20-2008, 06:28 PM
09-20-2008, 07:02 PM
09-20-2008, 07:29 PM
09-20-2008, 07:41 PM
09-20-2008, 07:58 PM
09-20-2008, 08:02 PM
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.
For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
09-20-2008, 09:39 PM
09-21-2008, 09:50 AM
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).
09-21-2008, 10:25 AM
09-21-2008, 11:54 AM
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)
09-21-2008, 11:57 AM
09-21-2008, 01:21 PM
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
09-21-2008, 02:47 PM
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.
Similar Forum Threads
- By TheCrownedOne in forum Weight LossReplies: 11Last Post: 02-13-2005, 01:08 PM
- By hardlyworkin in forum AnabolicsReplies: 13Last Post: 11-29-2004, 09:56 AM
- By blackjack in forum IGF-1/GHReplies: 2Last Post: 10-20-2004, 06:11 AM
- By NYUCKAH! in forum AnabolicsReplies: 10Last Post: 08-18-2003, 07:58 PM
- By msclbldrguy in forum General ChatReplies: 6Last Post: 04-09-2003, 09:35 PM