Needing help; Seriously! Re: Republican v Democratic / vice versa

Submitted by swanpondresident on January 25, 2012 - 9:21pm.

This may be a very remedial request yet, excuse me please, as I have become more frustrated, concerned, and now confused. Would someone please explain to me exactly who the Republican Party is? And, while at it, explain exactly who the Democratic Party is?

It seems so simplistic to make the firm statement, "I'm a republican / democratic" yet when I start to identify the differences of basic opinions of members of our elected bodies (State / Local / National) as well as ask voting citizens to explain, I cannot seem to obtain universally solid answers.

There is not a one-size-fits-all, I know. But, the both the Democrats and the Republicans seem to have several branches of theory driving their wagons.

Frankly, I have no idea what I am anymore. Would someone please take this and run with it?

Great debate topic, I believe.


onetahiti's picture
Try politicalcompass.org

The parties were never monolithic--more like coalitions of factions--and in addition they have greatly morphed over time.

Try taking the questionnaire at PoliticalCompass.org (Link...), then looking at their political "maps" to see how politicians from history and from both parties cluster (or not) on the maps--and see where you are placed too!

I'm waiting for their presidential primary 2012 map; it's not yet out.

-- OneTahiti

Great website

Interesting website, PoliticalCompass.org...Tks

Great website

Interesting website, PoliticalCompass.org...Tks

onetahiti's picture
Cartoon about the parties

Pat Bagley
Salt Lake Tribune
Jan 26, 2012

 
-- OneTahiti

WhitesCreek's picture
Another difference

Today's version of "Republican" is very different from the rest of us. After Sarah Palin put out an ad showing rifle site cross hairs on Congressman Gabrielle Giffords, a right wing crazy shot her in the head. Democratic women continue to be, shall we say, "targeted".

Link...

Surely you don’t intend

Surely you don’t intend for this to be taken seriously and you just posted it as some overheated hyperbole. I would think it unlikely that you would have any information that would in any way show that the man who shot the congresswoman was a “right wing crazy”. If you do would you please post it as my understanding is that he was simply demented and had no political “ax to grind”. In fact if you reference to the type of reading material that he had you might think that he was to the left of the political spectrum.

I will admit that Ms. Palin did post a map on a web site that had graphic symbols place on congressional districts that her political allies were trying to defeat in the coming election. Those symbols can be very much interpreted as gun sights but are commonly used in all types of presentations to give definition to points of interest. I assume that you do not lead such a sheltered life that you have not witnessed this even by members of your particular political persuasion. With that in mind could you also please explain how you could tie the use of graphic symbols in assigning blame to someone for the acts of a crazy person? If we can be blamed for the acts of others due to our use of language or symbols that are in common and acceptable usage then we have no freedom of speech at all.

As for your link to the Mother Jones article your claim to liberal women being targeted can be only marginally accurate since two of the stickers were on the doors of male congressmen including one Republican. Since there has been no resolution to the investigation as to who placed those stickers your implication that it was probably right wingers should be given little consideration at this time. As we have seen several times lately there are many false flag operations of this sort to gain some advantage. It is always more rational to wait until you have some objective proof prior to making any claims in matters such as this although that may not be the politically expedient thing to do.

WhitesCreek's picture
Perhaps instead of right

Perhaps instead of right wing crazy I should characterize Congressman Gifford's shooter as "anti government" crazy. Palin is a moral midget for refusing to accept any responsibility whatsoever for her gun sight poster.

At any rate, one has to accept the proposition that the GOP only way the GOP can stay in power is to maintain its pro gun, anti gay, right wing religious coalition. These factions are played for all they are worth by the massive influx of money from corporations and the ultra rich.

Republicans have offered nothing to solve any of this nation's problems except rhetoric and obstruction, with a record number of filibisters in the Senate on one hand and breathless declarations that Obama hasn't gotten anything done on the other.

I had thought that my post

I had thought that my post would have elicited some serious discussion of its points instead of generic partisan political rhetoric.

The fact that you changed the term from “right wing crazy” to “anti-government crazy” is little more than redundantly restating the premise. For, as most people know, “pro-government” groups hold both terms as interchangeable so I continue to await any proof that either of these terms apply, in the context implied

You did double down on your condemnation of Ms. Palin for what you obviously infer were an inciting use of certain graphic symbols. Yet you have not explained why she should have any blame place on her for using widely used and accepted political campaign media techniques. Militaristic terminology and symbols have a long and widely used history in American politics and, until this incident, received little if any negative commentary. This issue seems to be opportunism on the part of certain political factions to cynically score political advantage.

I failed to see any defense of your claim that liberal women are being targeted.

WhitesCreek's picture
Taken From the Door of Kansas State Sen. Kikki Curls

They are targets. It's a Democratic Woman. This is not, as you claim, an accepted practice, unless you mean accepted by Republicans.

Now you are being dishonest

Now you are being dishonest and needlessly provocative.

Show me where I said that the placing of those targets on the doors of congressmen and woman was acceptable. Is this the norm for discussion on this web site to mischaracterize posters comments? I have to assume, for the moment, that you do have sufficient comprehension abilities and this is just a dishonest attempt to smear me and score political points for yourself.

I clearly state that I was referring to media presentations plus you do not know the perpetrators of this activity so it would benefit you to hold judgment until you do. I will state again that those targets were placed on male member’s doors as well and one of them was a Republican so your premise that this is directed at liberal women is suspect at best.

WhitesCreek's picture
David,

You just want to argue. That isn't helping this country.

..you have not explained why she should have any blame place on her (Palin) for using widely used and accepted political campaign media techniques (Targets).

A gun sight target is a gun sight target. You can parse all you want, but this is still reprehensible. The overwhelming majority of the "targets" were Democratic women. Where is your condemnation of the tactic?

Worth Reading

onetahiti's picture
randmart

Excellent link! Thanks! :)

-- OneTahiti

Let me see if I have this

Let me see if I have this right.

You post some overheated partisan political rhetoric.

I take exception to your post and lay out my objections point by point.

You respond by doubling down on you original rhetoric and add even more.

I once again attempt to engage in debate.

At this point you resort to attacking me personally as somehow defending alleged political intimidation.

I appealed to you to show why I should be smeared in such a way.

You once again attack me as being an impediment to bettering this country because all I want to do is argue.

This appears to me to be a statement of your position that if I would only agree with your point of view we could solve this county’s problems. It seems that all this time I have been holding to a false definition of a debate. I thought it was to present your points and defend them with facts and to oppose you opponents points, that you disagree with, also with facts. At the same time ad hominem attacks were seen as of no value except for attempting to intimidate you opponent.

Your debating technique is novel, quite arrogant, and effective if you can get away with it. Since it is your web site I guess this leaves you once again undefeated.

BTW … No matter who placed the “targets”, on the doors of the congresspersons, it is illegal and ethically wrong. However I would make no attempt to score advantage from it until the investigation produces some objective truths that you can refer to. Does that make you feel better about my moral worth?

WhitesCreek's picture
Kinda suspicious, there DavidA

Are you running through the textbook script they gave you at your new job?

No one has attacked you personally. You haven't been smeared. You have no facts in your post. Are you a hired commenter? If so, you aren't very good at it. You're way too obvious.

That’s a rather paranoid

That’s a rather paranoid reply, on your part, and if I was of a like nature I could respond with a similar question. Such as … Since you are active in the Democrat party could the expenses of this web site and your time to operate it in any way be funded by that party or one of its PAC’s as a propaganda source? However, I won’t because I have no information, other than your hyper-dogmatic style, that I could use to support such a charge. I usually try not to engage in such innuendo, unlike some commenters, until I have some facts to support my charges.

Hint … Such as claiming that the Congresswoman’s shooting was caused and carried out by those on the Right side of the political spectrum. Insinuating that they are also engaged in intimidation of Liberal Congresswomen. Where are your facts for these charges?

C.S. Lewis:

“It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.”

“That is why the motive game is so uninteresting. Each side can go on playing ad nauseam, but when all the mud has been flung every man’s views still remain to be considered on their merits. I decline the motive game and resume the discussion.”

WhitesCreek's picture
See! You didn't deny you are a paid troll

Thanks for not contributing. When folks invite you into their place, you should try to make some sort of positive offering instead of running in and soiling the carpet right off the bat.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.