Should we treat the US Democrat/Republican parties as equally corrupt/depraved/etc

[bascule]

So an open thread here. Apparently there are some people who think Democrats and Republicans are tit-for-tat when it comes to corruption, depravity, contrarianism, etc. Others may feel that one party is generally better than the other.

 

What do you think? (I will withhold my position, which you can probably guess, until some discussion has ensued)

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that one party is worse than the other and which one that is switches every so often. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the longer a party is in power the worse it behaves, and the longer it is out of power the better it behaves. This because an incumbent has an advantage in elections so they don't need to please the people as much.

 

Our two party system ensures that they both spend about as much time in power as out of power.

[padren]

It's like going to the doctor and finding out you have a massive tumor: either it's a malignant mass of Republicans bent on metastasizing, or a benign but useless mass of Democrats that does nothing but consume resources.

 

Literally though, both groups are deceptive with Republicans being a little more "honest" due to their unveiled contempt for anyone that thinks differently than themselves. Democrats are more concerned with how others see them and think they can "educate" the masses to think like them, where as Republicans don't care if you die in the gutter if you are too slow to "get it" and do things their way.

 

 

 

I have to say I consider the Republicans more dangerous, in the same way outright aggression is more dangerous than passive aggressive behavior but both are undesirable. When a Democrat attempts to "educate" others they are susceptible to inadvertently learning new ideas and ways of thinking, whereas Republicans appear by and large to care very little about intellectual honesty, integrity or the use of communication for any purpose other than the direct manipulation of others in a manner suited to their objectives. They are far more likely to exhibit the "divine right" mentality that justifies any and all actions as long as they to forward their goals.

 

 

In short: I see democrats as misguided, and republicans as hellbent.

[CaptainPanic]

I believe that the republicans are in a league of their own. They just misinform, lie, use smear tactics...

 

The amount of crap we've had to swallow during the 8 years under Bush - sorry, it's just unforgivable... the bastard changed the world for the worse, and should be tried for crimes against humanity. And I kindly request the Americans not to forget that period too soon.

The 2 posts above are shockingly forgiving... they seem to claim that democrats and republicans are similar... you poor bastards. Did you forget already?

 

During almost the entire Bush period, over 90% of the Europeans thought America was "part of the problem rather than part of the solution".

That's because Europe was fed lies, Europe was dragged into two wars, Europe was abused to harbor torture-prisons, and the CIA gave themselves the right to arrest people on European soil. And the country with the biggest military machine in the world gave us the choice: "you're either with us, or against us"...

And all of that was supposed to be OK, and even necessary. All of those tactics and policies were defended with lies... that was a republican in charge, with republicans having majorities... and that was your country doing that.

 

The only reason the average European thinks that America is not the Evil Empire is called Obama. Remember that.

 

Apologies for a very strong opinion... it seems in place here. I tried hard not to curse.

[padren]

I think that one party is worse than the other and which one that is switches every so often. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the longer a party is in power the worse it behaves, and the longer it is out of power the better it behaves. This because an incumbent has an advantage in elections so they don't need to please the people as much.

 

My memory of the Clinton administration and the absolute shutdown created by Republicans following the mid-term elections in 1994, in conjunction with the foaming at the mouth rabid rantings of people like Newt Gingrich culminating in republican behavior up to and including the 2000 election... all invokes a slightly different recollection.

 

It was an absolutely despicable time for Republicans that resulted in the expiration of the Independent Counsel due to their gross abuse of it's office.

 

All this while a Democrat sat in the White House.

[npts2020]

I don't think Democrats are any more or less "corrupt" than Republicans. They are in fact two wings (conservative and more conservative) of the same "Business" party that routinely promotes corporate interests over those of individuals and society.

[bascule]

I don't think Democrats are any more or less "corrupt" than Republicans. They are in fact two wings (conservative and more conservative) of the same "Business" party that routinely promotes corporate interests over those of individuals and society.

 

True enough, but few and far between there are some true liberals/progressives in the Democrats... like Kucinich or Franken. It's almost unheard of but occasionally it happens.

[doG]

I think everyone currently serving in Washington needs to be sent home. There's not one true statesman in the bunch. They're all a bunch of self-serving liars.

[bascule]

I think everyone currently serving in Washington needs to be sent home. There's not one true statesman in the bunch. They're all a bunch of self-serving liars.

 

They all suck! Sure!

 

But do they all suck equally, or do some suck slightly less than others?

[doG]

Some worse than others but no particularly distinct party lines divide them. There are really bad apples on both sides and a few tolerable ones on both sides. I don't feel that any of them are doing the job the drafters of the Constitution intended them to do.

[iNow]

There are really bad apples on both sides and a few tolerable ones on both sides.

QFT. A very fair assessment, indeed.

 

 

I don't feel that any of them are doing the job the drafters of the Constitution intended them to do.

 

But, therein lies the rub. The constitution... like any other document or object... is subject to interpretation. Different people will read the exact same words in the exact same context and rather often reach vastly different conclusions and hold disparate interpretations... even though the set of data... and where that data is found... remains consistent across groups. The left/right divide is in part a direct result of human nature and our evolved cognitive mechanisms.

[npts2020]

True enough, but few and far between there are some true liberals/progressives in the Democrats... like Kucinich or Franken. It's almost unheard of but occasionally it happens.

 

Agreed, but those individuals are few and far between, plus they are marginalized as much as possible by the rest of the party. BTW I do like Mr. Kucinich a lot and Mr. Paul on the "other" side of the aisle does present a coherent strategy for national priorities. The problem is, what sort of leadership positions are any of those people in?

[john5746]

Just my opinion, but I do think the Republicans as a group have the larger problem with corruption, however they do tend to resign and/or apologize more than Democrats. So, maybe you have more corrupt/depraved Republicans, but more experienced corrupt Democrats?

 

also,

 

Kucinich - left wing nut

Paul - right wing nut

Franken - comedian, maybe ok

[jackson33]

Should we treat the US Democrat/Republican parties as equally corrupt/depraved/etc [/Quote]

 

We already do "treat" both the same....I do agree with John's post, however.

 

One example popped up last week, when the apparent vote of the Louisiana Senator was admittedly BOUGHT, for a program she will (her words) not vote for adoption, if it stands as is, for 300M$. If I accept $1.00 from either party for my vote for any elected official, I COULD go to jail. What concerns me, is that pundits from both parties have addressed this as 'business as usual'???

[bascule]

Wow...

 

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/25/807908/-Perino:-We-did-NOT-have-a-terrorist-attack-on-our-country-during-President-Bushs-term

 

A former White House press secretary makes the claim:

 

"But, you know, we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."

 

I don't know what to say

[Phi for All]

A former White House press secretary makes the claim:

 

"But, you know, we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."

Well, in her defense, we *didn't* have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term if we choose not to face up to it and call it what it was.

 

Not facing up to terrorist attacks means they can all be treated either equally, or with more or less importance depending on how it suits our purpose. Since 9/11 and Ft Hood could equally be called or not called terrorist attacks, this proves that Republicans and Democrats are equally corrupt, at least with regards to whether or not FOX is a news organization.

 

 

 

I think Perino and Hannity were counting on their rapid-rabid-speak to engage the Dopeler Effect.

[Syntho-sis]

On a side note, I've never really seen the logic in a two-party system to begin with. Seems like if you wanted a better representation of the people you would have multiple parties. Maybe it just keeps things more distinct and less confusing to have only two parties.

 

What do you all think?

[bascule]

Well, in her defense, we *didn't* have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term if we choose not to face up to it and call it what it was.

 

Perhaps she meant we didn't have a terrorist attack on this country during Bush's second term and forgot to say second.

[iNow]

On a side note, I've never really seen the logic in a two-party system to begin with. Seems like if you wanted a better representation of the people you would have multiple parties. Maybe it just keeps things more distinct and less confusing to have only two parties.

 

What do you all think?

 

I think it's rather off-topic, and that since we have several other threads already extant to discuss those topics that you should read/revive one of them to sate your curiosity.

 

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46023

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38647

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35020

[padren]

Perhaps she meant we didn't have a terrorist attack on this country during Bush's second term and forgot to say second.

 

Well, as far as "on Bush's watch" goes, you could argue he wasn't watching until after 9-11. I suspect that is actually what the guy meant to be honest - no terrorist attacks on Bush's watch during the War on Terror. Poorly and stated to the point of total inaccuracy (considering the largest terrorist attack in history was while he was President) but probably the point he was trying to make - I wouldn't be surprised if it was an honest mistake and not an intentional deception.

[Phi for All]

On a side note, I've never really seen the logic in a two-party system to begin with. Seems like if you wanted a better representation of the people you would have multiple parties. Maybe it just keeps things more distinct and less confusing to have only two parties.

 

What do you all think?

I think it crams as many ideologies as possible into two small boxes which force us to justify the poor fit, and makes it cheaper for corporations to support the winner.

 

Perhaps she meant we didn't have a terrorist attack on this country during Bush's second term and forgot to say second.

You are more charitable than I, sir.

 

Well, as far as "on Bush's watch" goes, you could argue he wasn't watching until after 9-11. I suspect that is actually what the guy meant to be honest - no terrorist attacks on Bush's watch during the War on Terror. Poorly and stated to the point of total inaccuracy (considering the largest terrorist attack in history was while he was President) but probably the point he was trying to make - I wouldn't be surprised if it was an honest mistake and not an intentional deception.

But if no one corrects her, isn't that as good as intentional? Would she have corrected herself on her own if no one caught it? That's the problem with right-wing pundit rapid-rabid-speak where everyone is like-minded; the audience is riddled with misinformation and has no time to digest while the enemy reloads.

[padren]

But if no one corrects her, isn't that as good as intentional? Would she have corrected herself on her own if no one caught it? That's the problem with right-wing pundit rapid-rabid-speak where everyone is like-minded; the audience is riddled with misinformation and has no time to digest while the enemy reloads.

 

I agree, and it really started to bother me during the presidential race. Palin was asked by a reporter about the investigation into her ethics violations, and she said point blank "she was cleared and no ethical violations were found" when quite demonstrably, she was cleared of criminal charges but the investigation concluded she committed ethical violations.

 

Her lie was cited by conservatives as "proof" that the liberal biased media lies - she was right there after all stating she was cleared of ethical violation and yet that crazy liberal media was claiming in other articles she was found guilty of those! The nerve!

 

I absolutely despise "talk over" politics.

[bascule]

You are more charitable than I, sir.

 

I ended up voting for the "her brain is PIE" option on the poll.

[Mr Skeptic]

On a side note, I've never really seen the logic in a two-party system to begin with. Seems like if you wanted a better representation of the people you would have multiple parties. Maybe it just keeps things more distinct and less confusing to have only two parties.

 

What do you all think?

 

I think it is an artifact of our voting system (wasted votes), since if we vote for a less popular third party that we like better they won't win, and we also lost the opportunity to help either the Democrat or Republican candidate win. Seeing the result that Democrats or Republicans win, people are too discouraged to vote for a third party candidate and don't even bother.

 

It certainly isn't because we like the Democrats nor Republicans.

 

----

 

I would submit that while the Republican party does seem to act worse than the Democrat party, it is not because the Democratic candidates have better morals. Rather, I suspect that it is because the Democrats pander more to the well-educated, and so cannot get away with the stuff they would if they were Republican candidates.

 

I predict that when a candidate switches parties they will start to act more like the candidates of the other party, not just their new party's political objectives but also their faults. Ie, more or less fear-mongering, more or less lies/exaggerations, more or less religious appeals, etc. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with any politicians who have switched parties so I can't post links to that.

[iNow]

Unfortunately, I am not familiar with any politicians who have switched parties so I can't post links to that.

 

Arlen Specter did just recently in April of this year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter