Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Democratic Canidate

55 (85.9%)

Republican Canidate

9 (14.1%)

Total Members Voted: 64

[smjjames]

I didn't assume that.....

[Earthquake Damage]

Why does everyone assume when I throw a poll up I'm trying to get some sort of nerfarious end out of it?

I give up.  What's the punchline?

[Shade-o]

Q: Why does everyone assume Nikov is a malicious bastard?
A: To get to the other side.

[scriver]

I may need a brown coat in the future if this keeps up.

Do you.. Do you understand what you just said?

Why does everyone assume when I throw a poll up I'm trying to get some sort of nerfarious end out of it?

Because frankly, you tend to troll. A lot.

[Nikov]

Why does everyone assume when I throw a poll up I'm trying to get some sort of nerfarious end out of it?

Because frankly, you tend to have a different point of view. A lot.

Fix'd.

[Aqizzar]

Why does everyone assume when I throw a poll up I'm trying to get some sort of nerfarious end out of it?

Because frankly, you tend to troll. A lot.

Fix'd.

Guilty pleasure? Making fun of people in a way that I don't intend to be offensive, yet have learned from experience will be taken as such. Sweet, sweet nicotine of spite.

For the record, I haven't answered the poll myself.  I protest that it should have an "other" option, as however Americans may vote, a good 40% of them at least claim to be "independent".  Which still isn't a vote, but whatever.

[Nikov]

Now Aqizzar, nowhere in that statement did I profess my guilty pleasure was practiced here.

The problem is since there is no Independant party or platform, I can't declare an independant generic canidate.

Also, hillarity. I've read that attack on Jefferson in print so these are hardly fake attacks.

[Tsarwash]

Shall I be the first to mention Nazis here ? It's only a matter of time really.

[Phmcw]

You're republican! How could you not be trying to get some nefarious end out of it?

[Aklyon]

Shall I be the first to mention Nazis here ? It's only a matter of time really.

Also, 90% of candidates are crap, If we're going to bring laws into this.

[Zangi]

Needs a: "I'm a lazy bastard and I don't vote." option.

[Vactor]

oh dear god, i hope that the party analysis on the last few pages was intentionally horrible.

The parties have revolved around each other on the political spectrum for some time, and occupy nearly opposite positions that they did 100 years ago,
I can break down the modern democratic/republican parties a bit for people here:

Republicans:

Fiscal Issues:
Tend to support de-regulation of industry and broad tax cuts to promote economic growth, in the eighties they were big proponents of supply-side economics, or what is often called trickle-down, the concept that allowing wealthy people keep more of their money will allow them to invest in new business and technology. Generally view government as ineffective, and campaign on calls for "smaller government."  Have a current 'starve the beast' tilt where rather than cutting out popular programs, they cut the taxes that fund them and force them to be cut or run on deficit.  They generally support free-trade and globalization as bringing prosperity to US corporations, and cheap goods to the US consumer.

The bush years were run by what is known as neo-conservatives, which have a nation-building ideology, which holds that peace and prosperity can be spread throughout the world by the spread of democracy, with war being an option to find that end, this dovetails with a strong support of the military industrial complex.

They are generally viewed as pro-corporation.

Social Issues: 
Christian evangelicals are a strong part of the republican coallition, and shape a great deal of their social policy, including pro-life, anti-same-sex marriage, and anti-evolution being taught in schools.
They also have a large anti-government group that are distrustful of the federal government, they tend to support gun-rights and public funding of private schools.

Broadly speaking republicans would like to see fewer rules and laws governing business, and ownership, and more laws governing morals and society.


Democrats:

Fiscal Issues:
Democrats are thought of as more supportive of a strong federal government, with strong regulation on business to protect consumers and the economy from excesses of business.  They take a more managed direction towards economic prosperity, thinking that a strong federal government can direct resources strategically into the economy to generate new technologies and business that otherwise would have been unfeasible for a for-profit company to fund.  They tend to support a tax system that taxes wealthier people more heavily than poorer people.  They are also very supportive of 'safety nets' such as unemployment insurance, and universal health care, which are thought to allow people greater flexibility in their lives to better their situation, and avoid misfortune from causing destitution.

They are generally thought of as pro-union, or pro-worker.

Social Issues:
Democrats tend to feel the federal government should fill the role as enforcer of the equality of people, rather than leaving it to the states and local governments to ensure.  This has led to a variety of programs that have tried to balance out economic and educational inequalities among various groups of people.  There is a tendency towards a strong separation of church and state in the democratic party, and a support of a purely secular school system.  This has democrats supporting laws that are founded outside of religious doctrine, including pro-choice, pro-same-sex marriage, and pro-public schools. 
There is also an environmental part of the democratic party that is supportive of enhanced regulation on pollution and land use.

Broadly speaking Democrats support more regulation of industry, a strong central government, and a federal government that takes an active role in the economy and the way in which society is structured.


Of course there is a wide spectrum in both parties, there are gun-toting, anti-government democrats, as well as gay-rights, isolationist republicans.


edit: also, democrats are terrible campaigners:  http://www.theonion.com/articles/democrats-if-were-gonna-lose-lets-go-down-running,18333/

[smjjames]

Eh, I hear Reid sucks and Pelosi was actually a bit of a loose cannon for a while after she got voted in, but that stopped before it became a real problem, IMO anyway.

As for the parties, the variability is why you have to look at each candidate and what they say.

[Vactor]

Eh, I hear Reid sucks and Pelosi was actually a bit of a loose cannon for a while after she got voted in, but that stopped before it became a real problem, IMO anyway.

This is because republicans are amazing at branding and control of message.  You don't know anything that either of them have done, but it is just common knowledge that they're no good.  democrats are terribad at controlling the message about what is going on.

as to if congress will 'stop squabbling' no they absolutely will not, republicans primary goal for the next two years, as stated by boehner is to ruin Obama, which would mean preventing absolutely anything from getting done.

[smjjames]

as to if congress will 'stop squabbling' no they absolutely will not, republicans primary goal for the next two years, as stated by boehner is to ruin Obama, which would mean preventing absolutely anything from getting done.

Which will make people hate congress even more, you've gotta admire their lack of forethought sometimes.