Is there a difference

Post Reply New Topic

Other than the fact that the republicans say what they really think in a crude blunt manor as opposed to the democrats who lie and say things they don't really believe.

Does anybody really believe there is a real difference?

The left came up with the term "Karen" for entitled people and say they hate entitlement.But isn't that why the republicans are against welfare and free health care because they didn't believe people were entitled to anything.

People say the republicans lack compassion but aren't they just blunt in saying what they really believe,don't the liberals believe the same things but conceal there true intentions to appear more benevolent?

Make this thread a open forum on brainstorming,my opening statement hopefully provoked thought.Instead of agreeing or disagreeing,just throw out your thoughts on if you feel there really is a difference between parties?

Vermont...

Yes, or no.

Have you stopped beating your wife?






Thats the kinda question you're asking here.

How so,I appreciate the humor though.

What are your real thoughts on the difference between parties.How does that relate as to whether one bests his wife joking or not.I get your joke but not it's relation to the post.

I vote for the person, not the party.

I would like to, but my country has proprotional representation.

We don't have an elected "head of state" here (thankfully), so it's all party based.

Sadly, too many vote for the party they always have, then complain about how nothing ever changes, rather than voting based on the policies that the parties hold which are best suited to their personal needs\beliefs.

With party lists, right?

Are there methods of implementing that where candidates are still tied to a more localized region?

In theory, yes, but as it doesn't suit interests of those who have the most power in the system (party leaders, in that case), it's notoriously bypassed.

@Magz
I get the sentiment but in America the candidate who is chosen is greatly under control of the party.

That's a lot of why the DNC Stonewalled the Sanders campaign in 2016 in favor of Clinton.Because Sanders was very anti corporate,and DNC feared loosing corporate support.So the burried Sanders in favor of more corporate friendly Clinton.

Likely why the Sanders campaign did so poorly in 2020 as well,Biden is more corporate friendly and again DNC didn't want to loose corporate money.

Yes, I can see it - the two candidates to choose from are in fact selected by decisions made by those most powerful in the system (in the case of US, corporate business).

Power corrupts and democratic systems, while meant to distribute the power more evenly, are not fool-proof in preventing abuse of it.

I think at this point both parties are willing to throw this country into chaos if it means more power for them.

Here is another example of Republicans being honest again and getting punished for it.

A Cleveland area radio host gets fired for referring to Kamala Harris as colored.

Doesn't the left use the meme "person of color" quite a bit.Colored is blunt and dated but is there really a difference with "person of color" a preferred term of the left.I guess it implies person first language but most average people don't want person first language.

So someone lost three job for not being subtle enough or hip enough.I can't see the left's POC meme as better.

This is. A sore spot for me, and yet to make any real sense of it . When I go to vote, you are given a democratic or a
Republican ballot , any your choices are only for one or the other party, but some of the choices are not choices at all
Many of the proposed people to vote for have no one running against them . Incumbents .. if there is no choices then why vote . Or if no one else is running for that office, abolish the office “ job”. No one thinks enough of the job to run for that office then. Why have it, And. Being forced to vote for an entire group of persons for office, why not be able to vote for the person best qualified. , Democrat or Republican.? Regardless .

Generally speaking peoples prefer to be referred to by endonyms (names they've chosen for themselves as a people), not exonyms (names applied to them). Generally speaking these 'new' names for groups of people originate within those communities.

Yes indeed,that's what the system is supposed to be,but it didn't work out that way though

Sanders lost principally because he didn’t have enough support from black and Latin voters.

In 2020 he improved his standing with Latin voters through a lot of hard work and his campaign benefitted from it, but didn’t put in the same work with black voters and got trounced in states where the black vote was important.

I think “person of colour” is a stupid term but there aren’t really many non-stupid terms for the same phenomenon in an American context. Appreciate what FXE says about exonyms vs endonyms but how many BAME Americans were involved in that process, and how many actually have a preference for one over the other? Then you see terms like “BIPOC” emerging which weirdly pit black and Indigenous people against Asians and Latins and other non-white ethnic groups. The euphemism treadmill isn’t necessarily bad, but it isn’t necessarily good either.