As a european citizen i never realized what's the difference between these two political parties in the U.S.

Can you enlighten me please?

Obama is one of one of those. He's not one of the other.

Repulicans are the closeminded liberals that say everything should remain the same and no one should do anything new, like no gay marriage and no interracial marriage stuff like that. or something that'l get more attention, their the people against co-ed college dorms

Democrats are conservitives and they are the opposite of the Republicans, they support co-ed college dorms (meaning you can room with a hot chick in college if your a dude.)

Yeah, you got that wrong. Republicans are conservative, Democrats are (more) liberal.

eh either way the republicans put bitchy bush in office so in my mind they are the worst.

Republicans are the greatest. Democrats these days are nothing more than socialists.

There's actually not a whole lot of difference between the two, in terms of actions. What comes out of their mouths is certainly different.

I'll start with the traditional characteristics of both parties, but keep in mind that these are only the TRADITIONAL characteristics and do not really reflect reality anymore.

Republicans, traditionally, stood for small government, aggressive foreign policy, and low tax/low spend economic policy. They believed that the several states should do most of the legislating, while the federal legislature should do very little. They believed in a supply-side economic policy, where large businesses were subsidized by the federal government (called "corporate welfare" by the Democrats) in the hopes that the money would lead to expansion of business and more jobs. (known also as "trickle-down" economics). The biggest issue for the Republicans, traditionally, has always been foreign policy. Americans who saw themselves as Independents would vote Republican if they felt our foreign policy needed improvement, and they would vote Democrat if they felt domestic policy needed improvement.

Democrats, traditionally, have focused primarily on improving domestic policy through expanding programs for education, health care, small business, and social programs. Their economic policy is characterized as "labor-side", where government revenue is generated through taxes on large businesses and wealthy individuals, while giving a break to the "little guy" in the hopes that he will have more disposable income to stimulate the economy. Jobs were historically created through the expansion of government-funded infrastructure programs. Democrats were traditionally thought to stand for more government regulation of businesses (rather than allowing them to self-regulate) and believed that the federal government should be the key legislators rather than the state governments.

Now, as I mentioned, these are only the traditional stereotypes, if you will, of the two parties. These stereotypes have been turned on their sides. Since 1980, which was considered the start of the neoconservative movement, Republicans who have followed the neoconservative philosophy have taken measures towards expanding the federal government and have engaged in huge deficit spending. The only traditional ideals they have stuck to are the supply-side economics and aggressive foreign policy. A huge segment of the Republican party these days are the "religious right" and the social conservatives. These are people who, basically, feel that we are turning into a Sodom and Gomorrah and it is their religious duty to save us from ourselves through the political process. While to the average person these people might come off as wackos, they have a huge influence and have made the difference in many elections.

Democrats, on the other hand, have shed their image as isolationists on foreign policy and have taken a more corporation-friendly approach to economics. This is the main reason why there is not much difference between the two parties anymore. These two areas used to be the biggest differences between the two parties, but now their attitudes are virtually indistinguishable in those areas. Democrats have maintained their focus on education and health care, however. They no longer believe in deficit spending, and actually balanced the budget under Bill Clinton, which was something that had not been done since the early '60's before him, and has not been done since he left office. This is notable, because one of the key characteristics of the Republican Party, prior to the neoconservative movement, was fiscal responsibility, and there are only a handful of Republican senators and representatives who still tout that ideology.

Political parties do not mean as much as they used to. Much of the time they join a political party for reasons of efficiency. For example, I have a friend who is staunchly conservative and ran for city council as a Democrat, simply because it was a demographic area where you did not stand a snowball's chance in hell of being elected as a Republican.

Here is the main thing about Republicans and Dems.

Republicans believe that the average citizens should have more rights and that the government should not be where people don't believe it should be.

Dems believe that the government should have more control in people's lives.

Republicans believe that a state of nature(No government) is better than a social compact(Government is everything! No freedom, no rights)

Dems believe that a social compact is better than a state of nature

An example of social compact is communism, only worse

So to me, since Republicans are more moral and have better ideologies, I believe the Republican party are better than Dems.

I don't know if you read my previous post, b10gangster, but I described how those traditional descriptions are now obsolete. They have been for decades, actually, if they ever existed in practice at all.

If anything, it is the Republican party who in the last decade has attempted to restrict the civil rights of the citizens. They have practically demonized the ACLU, an organization dedicated to preserving the constitutional rights of every American. Prior to the last decade, you can't really describe one party preferring a social compact and the other a state of nature, either. You probably never could. Those descriptions are better suited to communism on one end and anarchy on the other, not facially similar political parties in a democratic nation. The reality is that both parties were moderates for at least the prior thirty years.

It was a Democratic president who signed NAFTA and the Welfare Reform Act into law, which are two of the most anti-entitlement, small government pieces of legislation prior to the New Deal of the mid-20th century. On the flip side, it was a Republican president who signed the Patriot Act into law, which is a piece of legislation that restricts the rights of Americans more than anything since the Alien and Sedition Acts over 100 years ago.

As I stated, the stereotypes have been turned on their sides.

Republican :L/......I am British........At least Bush was more fun than Obama....Every day on the news....Bush would've done something stupid...Obama is just boring :L

without getting too deep into it, both parties are terrible liars who are only out for their own personal gains.

Falcon, I will admit, that is completely true.

And Brutus, the Republican party is known more to be more moral? The
Democrats, which believed slavery was perfectly okay, and used it for
economy, or the Republicans, like Lincoln, who abolished it?

Second, Republicans have not been trying to limit our civil rights,
nor any rights, and believe we should have more. Republicans don't
believe in gun control, mostly because it is pointless. The only people
who would follow it are law abiding citizens, while gangsters and Mafia
would just continue to get guns illegally, and law abiding citizens
then have no chance to protect themselves. It would be like prohibition
all over again, only worse.

Also, the welfare act, great! Now more lazy Americans can stay at
home and live off the sweat of a working man! With less people working,
there goes the economy!

Democrats can't do anything! They just want to ruin everything, including the already screwed up economy. And where is Obama's promise to end the war? He sent 35,000 troops there in just one year. Let's end the war by killing more Americans with families, go Democratic party, go ruin America!

And whatever happened to the Health Care Act or whatever, why has it taken an entire year and not even have been passed? And why do we need it? So that people who are already on lots of welfare now get insurance paid by more sweat of Americans? And people who don't want health insurance must now get it? Very bad plan if you ask me. But at least the insurance companies, who rip people off, are happy!

You just lost any amount of credibility you ever had. The Republican Party of Lincoln, is not the same party today. You are talking about 150 years ago. The Republican Party, as I have thoroughly discussed, is not even the same as it was 30 years ago. Since the Civil War, which was a long time ago as I mentioned, they have opposed Civil Rights legislation, opposed Affirmative Action, opposed the Voter Rights Act, supported segregation, etc etc etc. It is no coincidence that 90% of African Americans are Democrats.

I could really end my discussion right here, but I will go on in the hopes that maybe you will learn something.

The only Constitutional right supported by Republicans is the Second Amendment, as you have stated. News Flash! There are 9 more civil rights in the Bill of Rights! The Patriot Act, as I have already mentioned, has done more to restrict civil liberties than any legislation since the Alien and Sedition Acts. You conveniently chose to ignore this point. Republicans are more likely to favor censorship, have often tried to integrate church and state which deprives those with faiths other than Christianity, consistently ignore Ninth Amendment Privacy Rights (Penumbras and Emanations), continually attempt to decrease the amount of due process an accused citizen may receive, including rights to trial by jury, and have recently taken up the cause of justifying cruel and unusual punishment as reflected by the torture debate.

Your next comment was about as ignorant as you can get. Perhaps you should have, at the very least, looked up the Welfare Reform Act if you had no fucking idea what it was about. The Welfare Reform Act was about....wait for it....REFORM! It put a cap on the number of years a welfare recipient may receive assistance from the state, and in many cases required recipients to work while receiving benefits, even if they were single parents supporting children. In other words, it reduced the amount of money that was going to entitlements in state welfare programs. Speaking of entitlements, do you want to know where most of them go? To corporations. Surprise! While for decades, Republicans have vilified single mothers for receiving assistance from the State, the overwhelming amount of entitlements - up to about 90% of them - go to corporations. A little consistency here, please. If you are going to oppose free handouts, oppose all of them.

Democrats want to ruin the already screwed up economy? You mean the economy that went in the tank after eight years of a Republican-controlled Congress and White House? Now you are demanding that it be fixed in one year after almost a decade of poor economic policy by Republicans? That, my friend, is what we call chutzpah. Before Bush took office, we had a booming economy, a lucrative housing market, and a 300 billion dollar budget surplus. Now the economy is in the toilet, most people's mortgages are under water, and we have a 300 TRILLION dollar DEFICIT! As far as your comment about ending the war, fair enough, but let's not forget who brought us to war in the first place. It is much easier to start a war than to pull out of one. Bush obligated our troops to an endless conflict without much thought or research. I say endless conflict, because the actual enemy is not a country, but an ideology. You cannot defeat an ideology, because it has no borders other than the human mind.

Finally, the "Health Care Act or whatever". Really, if you are going to discuss these things, get a clue what you are talking about. I'll take your ignorant questions one at a time.

1. Why has it taken an entire year?  - Because we no longer have a rubber-stamp Congress. We have representatives and senators who actually READ the proposed bills, discuss them in committee, iron out differences and attempt to make a compromise, and then pass a version. The House version passed may not be the same as the Senate version passed, which means then that the two chambers have to iron out THEIR differences. This is the stage they are in now.

2. Why do we need it?  - Because over 30 million people in this country have no health insurance, due to a system based on profit rather than concern for our citizens' health. Our current health care system is worse than any other in the Western world. We rank around third world nations in the area of health care. That's pitiful for a country as wealthy as ours. A nation is judged based on how they care for their least fortunate. We always condemn other countries for their domestic policies. Health care is one area where we need to look at our own.

3. So that people who are already on lots of welfare now get insurance paid by more sweat of Americans?  - Perhaps your second stupidest comment here. Those on welfare already receive health care. Perhaps you've heard of it, it's called Medicaid.  The purpose of the Act is to get coverage for...wait for it...WORKING AMERCANS who for one reason or another cannot afford health insurance and do not qualify for Medicaid.

I believe if you were aware of what is really going on in Washington, you would probably agree with me on many issues. The problem is, as is the problem with most people in our country, that you have no clue about politics. Don't feel bad, you are not alone. This has been a phenomenon plaguing our nation for the last 60 years. I am sure that I would not be any better off if not for the fact that my field is in politics. We have become less and less interested in what our politicians are doing - outside of the bedroom at least - and more concerned about sensationalistic stories (such as what they are doing in the bedroom and what is going on in Hollywood) or what retard is currently winning on American Idol.

If the insurance companies are now happy, it is only because of the many concessions that have been made since the original introduction of legislation in the health care debate. Republicans, who represent the interests of the insurance company, have threatened filibuster and refused to support any expansion of government-run health care. They have lobbied to preserve the financial interests of the insurance companies, and as such have been successful in having the Public Option and the Single Payer options removed.  Yes, that made the insurance companies very happy. The original versions introduced in the two chambers of Congress would have forced insurance companies to deal reasonably with customers and would not allow denial in coverage. The versions have since been watered down by the demands from the Republican side of the aisle, and now, yes, they will continue to rape our bank accounts.

If's funny to hear an ignorant Democrat go on about how Dems want to
fix the economy. It's a good thing that the Health Care Reform might
lose. Did you hear about Massachusetts? They elected a Republican
Senator. Now the Rep/Dem ratio in Congress is 41/59, and Democrats
can't cancel a filibuster. So unless the House accepts the Senate's
version, which it does not want to, there goes that waste of time! Finally!

Also, when Bush was in Office, was Congress Democrat or Republican,
or did you not look up that either before speaking? Congress was
Democrat, so if Bush wanted anything done, or wanted to help America,
Congress didn't get it done, ruining America even more. Also, if Bush
was so bad, why did America vote for him to have a second term, such an
interesting fact, since he fucked everything up.

So you say I don't know anything about politics. You probably had no
clue who was really ruining America! A Democratic Congress, which can
make the laws! Which can make the Acts, the Reforms, but did not, and
now, look at America! Bush was limited to what Democrats were willing
to give, or did you not know that? 

Also, did you even know that 86 percent of Americans agree that government spending on  Welfare
and Medicaid should either stay exactly the same or be lowered? Or did
not concern yourself in the ideas of other people? Democrats lack the
ability to think of a group's benefit, only for the single person. Let
me guess though, you have never heard of the prisoner's dilemma! Since
the statement is true, then it is true that the people do not want this
bill to go ahead.

I believe if you were aware of what is really going on in Washington,
you would probably agree with me on many issues. The problem is, as is
the problem with most people in our country, that you have no clue about politics. Don't feel bad, you are not alone, Brutus.

Also, then why should Americans who do not want it have to get it?
Why does this waste of time want to force the most healthiest people to
have health insurance? If they don't want it, why force them. Let them
choose, or is your head so far up in your ass that you believe that
communism is correct in forcing it's citizens into having health
insurance. We are going away from Democracy and closer to Communism, or
is that what you were hoping for? 

Going to your first proposed statement, you must realize that we
have had a Democratic Congress for plenty of time, and now they seem to
be working? What you have stated now means that Democrats are getting
their Welfare paid asses and trying to do something. So, after so many years, why start now then earlier. Or is it better late then now for you guys?

At this point, I'm getting tired of trying to convince some Democrat ass (The irony) that they are raping this country of what it could be and going to do anything, which is everything, that is better. If you continue, you are yelling into the wind, but you are an ass, so you may.

Have a good day, I will when a filibuster comes out against the Health Care bill.

Another massive fail on your part.

Congress was Republican controlled from 1994-2006.

Congress was Democrat controlled from 2006 - present.

I do not need to look it up. I am a political scientist who works in government. In other words, I am speaking from personal knowledge. You, on the other hand, continue to show that you have no idea what you are talking about. If my previous post was insufficient to show that you are speaking from a total lack of personal knowledge and experience, then I do not know what it will take.

As far as the clause requiring all to have health insurance, I also do not agree with it. However, it does provide for those who are unable to afford it to get subsidies. If you are a Republican, this should make you happy. It is forcing people to pay money to health insurance companies. Republicans support insurance companies and other large corporate interests. It is because of Republican pressure that the insurance companies are remaining in the picture rather being rendered useless by a single-payer plan.

By the way, I'm not a Democrat. I'm a Libertarian. Fail number two.

And yet you are still an ass.

And if you are a Libertarian, then why are you supporting the Democrats, and not just ignoring this? You are getting into a pointless fight that you have no need to get involved in.

Also, another fail on your part. We are talking about Bush's time in office, so how is 1994-1999 involved? Secondly, during 2000-2002, Congress was split, one house Dems, one house Rep. Or did you not know that? I thought a political scientist would know that, and not be beaten by one who is not. The government should surely fire you.

Also, Republicans are more moral than they are into business. We believe that a person should still get to choose whether or not they have health insurance. But you probably shit on the idea of morality.

I still can't believe I'm wasting my time on you, and let's not even get into the fact I'm arguing a "political scientist" who doesn't know shit (What a big surprise) and is in a pointless third party. 

Now, how about you take your head out of your ass and actually learn how the government works. 

And lack of personal knowledge? I know more than you, so either you are a complete fool or you should stop insulting and actually talk, because I don't hear a thing coming from you.

If you want to get technical about it, during those years the Senate had 51 Dems during 200-2002. So, yeah, the Senate had an extra Democrat, but Congress was still Republican controlled with a majority in the House, and Senate Dems from the South usually siding with Republicans, but that is getting off on a tangent.

As for supporting Dems, I have done no such thing. I am merely stating facts. That is all I have done since I entered this discussion. I am sorry that the facts paint your party in a bad light. The facts are still the facts.

As far as including 1994-2000, what difference does it make? I was merely trying to be accurate. It would have been an incomplete statement if I had only said 2000-2006.

Yes, I might be being an ass, but that is only because I am speaking to someone who is indignant in his own ignorance. You have clearly shown that you know nothing about the makeup of Congress (you said it was Democrat controlled, then you came back and acknowledged that it was not for most of those years. What, did you actually do some research?). You have shown that you know nothing about the Welfare Reform Act (calling it the "Welfare Act" and thinking it actually expanded entitlements). You have shown that you were not aware that welfare recipients receive Medicaid....AND ON AND ON AND ON.

And you claim to know more than me? Comedy. Pure comedy. This isn't a competition about who knows more, but I am an expert in this area. Continue to call me a fool, if you wish. Anyone who can read can look through the discussion and see your failings, which I was kind enough to point out.

I laugh every time you open that mouth of yours. You who know so much, and yet, are so ignorant. I haven't met a more idiotic bastard in my life.

And you have shown pure bias.

As for supporting Dems, I have done no such thing. I am merely stating
facts. That is all I have done since I entered this discussion.

And yet your entire conversation is for the Democrats!This is just hilarious to listen to you, an ignorant LIBERTARIAN who knows nothing. This is unreal, this is more fun than the mathematical argument I had two years ago with someone who was worthy of having an argument. This is just funny!

Now, when you feel like actually typing meaningful words and stop sending me messages that i don't read, since they are all probably BS, since they come from you, how about talking.

At least you admitted you are ass, that's an improvement! And ignorance? Please! If I'm ignorant, a person who was in AP calculus for freshman year, and found an infinite series for the PDF that was not founded by any other person! (Let me guess, you don't know what that is, even though you are a political scientist. And don't ask me what journal it is in, because you are illiterate, and wouldn't be able to make out the words) This is pure bliss! Listening to a Libertarian who is so high on drugs he's telling shit. This is funnier than Jeff Dunham! 

And my failures. I already have so many mails about why I am dealing with an ass like you, it isn't even funny! People are noticing your failures to my zero failures. You have no knowledge, and if you were a political scientists, then why are you dealing with me. Let me just talk into the wind. Now be a man, stop being a wimp, and actually talk, because you are doing shit

I have pointed out each your failings with specific examples. All you have done is shown your lack of knowledge and hurl abuse.

Why don't you tell me how to be a man, stop being a wimp, and actually talk, and maybe I will try to accomodate you?  (That was sarcasm. What are you, 15 years old? This is an adult discussion.)

Guess what? YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT SOMETHING! I have no idea what your infinite PDF gobblygook is all about! That's because my field is law and politics, not math! But, as a mathematician, I would think that logic would be your strong suit. So...you must understand that it is rather confusing to me why you would depart from logic by using a knowledge of math as evidence that you know anything about politics. You are certainly grasping for straws at this point.

Well, your statement just proved you were not a political scientist, because a political scientist would use the probability density function everyday of their life. If you were a political scientist, you would have some knowledge as to what PDF means. You are a fraud. You are just a lying son of a bitch. Yes, logic is my suit. I knew you were not a political scientist from the start, and thanks for proving it for me. If you were one, you would know what the probability density function is!

They use it everyday, and you have no clue what it is. You were a fraud from the beginning! Now what excuse do you have? Tell me, since political scientists know what the PDF is, you don't know what it is, then by LOGIC, you either are a failure at being a political scientist, or you aren't one. Which is it?

This is an adult discussion, but I wish I was talking to one!

You, by saying you don't know what the PDF is, showed you aren't a political scientist, and your whole argument now falls apart!