Explain and convert please

[Jason600]

I am not a republican, but not a democrat either. Here is where I stand. I feel that I am more right leaning on issues of money and government. I also feel that I am left on almost all social issues. I also feel that the republican party lies a great deal or if it doesnt lie, then it has great difficulties answering questions correctly. I see the democratic party representing many smaller groups who don't always have the same goals. If push came to shove, which group do they put first, and how can you promise all the groups what they want? The republican party trys to make out the Dem's as socialists, which shakes up alot of people who would love to vote their way. I see good people on both sides as well as idiots who give alot of lip service. So, my question is what am I missing. So people do not misunderstand, I am serious. Also, venomous comments are a real turn off for most people so dont tell me why the Republicans are wrong, but why Dem's are right.

[madfloridian]

1. It is our duty to question the government's actions.

What they are doing now is very harmful to our country. They should be held accountable.

I am suspicious of anyone or any candidate who does NOT criticize what is going here in this country right now.

I am proud to be part of the party who includes everyone.

[soupkitchen]

2. Why democrats are right

Five day 40 hour work week
overtime pay
Unemployment insurance
paid holidays
child labor laws
Any labor laws
Student Loans for college
social security (Which has virtually eradicated poverty in the elderly)
Medicaid
Medicare
Expansion of opportunity, and the greatest economy in the history of the world, created from the depths of the Great Republican Depression.
etc, etc, etc.

[Speck Tater]

3. The way I see it

The Republicans have picked a couple of key issues and rally behind those issues with a great deal of consistency and solidarity. The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to have a bazzilion different issues and even finding two Democrats that agree on all those issues is unlikely. As Will Rogers once said "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

What it seems to boil down to is that the Republicans have a core group built around core issues and the Democrats include everybody else. But that "everybody else" is a scattered, disorganized loose-knit collection of people with very different views. Not only do Democrats tend to attack Republican politicians, but they attack other Democratic politicians as well.

In a sense, the Democrats are better identified as "non-Republicans", defined more by what they are not than by what they are. I am not a Republican because I don't believe in all of the core values of the Republicans. I'm socially liberal. I believe in equal rights for everyone whether black or white, gay or straight, Christian or Buddhist. But I also enjoy target shooting and believe I have the right to own a gun. I believe in fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget.

In other words, I can't be Republican because I don't agree with them 100%, but I can be a Democrat because one is allowed to be a Democrat without agreeing 100% with other Democrats. Disagreement and diversity is tolerated here.

[kanrok]

4. Let me take a crack at this

I don't think anyone with an ounce of common sense buys into everything that either party espouses. The Republican party has more unanimity of voice for some reason. I believe it is because they are closed-minded on many issues. Not all, mind you, but many, if not most. Dems do encourage a lot of different points of view. We believe in the marketplace of ideas. I find myself in vehement disagreement with some views some dems have. (I.e., legalization of drugs, for instance). But after it is all said and done, I believe what is good for all may include things I don't agree with. I'm willing to live with that because I believe in inclusive, rather than exclusive, policy making. If you're for social Darwinism, the Republican party is for you. If you believe that we should give a boost to those less fortunate to us, then the Dems are your party. With this in mind, I suggest you google the term "Third Way" and read about that political movement. It seems to have a lot in common with your stated beliefs. After all, it's not really about "who's right, and who's wrong" it's about what's best for everyone, IMHO. Cheers, and welcome to DU.

[drdigi420]

12. How could you be against the RElegalization of drugs?

Are you that cruel that you would rather see our schools continue to be destroyed by this war on drugs?

Are you happy that school kids run the drugs market instead of legitimate businesses?

You actually prefer the high crime rates that prohibition causes?

You like seeing money that could be used for schools, roads, homeland security, etc, flushed down the toilet in a COUNTERPRODUCTIVE attempt to slow drug use?

How the hell could ANY thinking person want to continue the failed war on drugs, which causes MUCH MUCH more damage to society than all the drugs themselves combined.

Sorry, I'm just flabbergasted at how uninformed people are on this issue.

[La_Serpiente]

14. I think if anyone wants to look at a model country for Drug legalization

One should look at Portugal. They have legalized all drugs that would be considered illicit in the United States.

[Selwynn]

16. Do they have a lower rate of drug use?

Do you want to provide any statistics on Portugal yourself?

[La_Serpiente]

22. Oh...I don't know anything about Portugal

It's just that I know that they have legalized all types of drugs. HOwever, if you want to look at their society, you have to do it yourself.

[Selwynn]

15. I am against legalization, and you're argument = Either/Or Logical fallacy

It is most certainly not the case that either you are for relegalization of drugs or you desire all the things you listed.

I believe that drug addiction should be treated as a disease with treatment, and that the way we write drug laws and deal with drug offenses should be radically changed.

But I do not believe drug use is acceptable, period. And by the way, if we wanted to get serious on the "war" on drugs, we could stop the drug flow into this country and around the world in an instant. The drug war is a joke, we are making millions off of its stalemate, but that doesn't mean therefore the only other alternative position is for legalization.

Just because something is difficult doesn't mean its not right. I don't believe in giving a government green stamp to things that are so frequently destructive to human life. And this also probably stems from my total rejection of the dogma of personhood that says an idividual is free and right to make any choice he or she wants about his/her own life and no one should ever interfere. I don't believe that.

But anyway I'm not going to be in this thread making some huge multi-post argument about drugs. The bottom line is, I'm for a total change in how we treat drug use, with an emphasis on treatment, but I am absolutely not for legalization under any circumstances.

[kanrok]

30. Well said.

[kanrok]

29. Please stop trying to convert me on this issue

Go to this thread if you care to argue your point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=14334

I don't think drug laws are "cruel." I'd be happy to debate this, but try to steer clear of hyperbole.

[Jason600]

31. cant argue...ok, I will

- prohibition did not work so many years ago and, it does not work today. the war on drug is not destroyuing our schools, but the criminals that are created sure help. And sure, if it was legal than, of course the rates would drop. If 10 people kill someone and there is no law saying its illegal than, there's no crime rate. My concern is that while I see the point of less crime, would'nt the money just shift over to addiction clinics?????????????

[rock]

5. Then you are a Liberal

Because you think for yourself; you want to solve each problem based on it's own merits. Incidently, I agree with a great deal of what the Right says they stand for, but unfortunately, it's just talk.

[soupkitchen]

6. Thats right: If I thought things were on the level I'd be a conservative.

[Jason600]

26. do you think with all of them, most , or some

[La_Serpiente]

7. Let me explain to you something

Are you a supply sider? If so, you belong in the Republican party because there are plenty of them in there. Are you someone who believes in balanced budgets? Then you belong in the Democratic Party. I say this because there has never been a Republican president that has balanced the federal budget.

However, it seems to me that you are a libertarian. Most libertarians, to me at least, are social moderates and fiscal conservatives.

It is true that the Democratic party has many groups. On most occasions, we are probably fighting each other. It is because we are very passionate about what we believe in. I am sure that there are Republicans who are for Abortion rights and for Gay rights. However, they are not passionate about it. Most of the Abortion and Gay Rights Activists in the Democratic Party are very passionate in what they believe in because they have been fighting for the rights for years. So one could expect infighting when there are passionate people involved.

In fact, I believe that the Democratic Party is fractured. What really hurt a lot of Democratic activists this year was the war vote. Sure, there are people like Liberman who vote with liberals on environmental issues and on the economy most of the time, but the things that the Democratic Party has been facing recently has caused a schism in the party between those who supported the war an those who didn't. There is also the tax cuts, partial birth abortion, and their compromising with the Republicans.

What the Democratic Party needs is a major fixing up. Many moderate Democrats are more like Liberal Republicans. The Democratic Party used to be a party that stood up for human rights and for the working class. Instead, we have Democrats who are voting for trade (Clinton) and the war (Number of Democratic Presidential Candidates). Their rhetoric doesn't match their votes or actions.

The Democratic part is hardly the socialist party anymore. Although we firmly believe in Social Security, that's pretty much it. The Republican party tries to demonize the word liberal and they just spew it out like the Monster Out of the Sea (Allusion to Revelations: New Testament).

Frankly, just like the Democratic Party, there are hypocrites in the Republican party. Newt Gingrich had an affair and so did Rudy Guliani. I don't mean this to be an attack. I just wanted to highlight the point that there are hypocrites on all sides. I could name more references, but that would take too long.

There is this group in the Democratic Party in the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) who claims that they represent the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party when the really don't. It is they who get special recognition in the party. The traditional Democrats that harken back to the days of the sixties and the seventies have either been shoved on the side or have joined their movement.

So you could understand why so many traditional Democrats have become fed up with the Democratic Party and have moved to the Green party.

Basically, if the Democratic Party keeps this up, it will be the party for you because you will see a massive exodus from the party.

Does that answer your question? Ask more if you want to .

[Rose Siding]

8. Maybe this will help

DUer sfwriter posted this last Dec and I always love getting the chance to share it (this was in response, of course, to a slightly different question but take from it what you will):

The next big push from the White House will be to continue down the road of wealth redistribution that Reagan started. Remember, we built the Interstate highway system and paid for the Apollo project under this "old" structure. We'd be hard pressed to rebuild it now. We have been progressively moving the burden to the middle-class of this country from the top 2% (Read corporations, multi-millionaires and billionaires) for two decades now. The White House has said those making between $45,000 and $75,000 need to pay a third more in taxes. Along similar lines, the Wall Street Journal is echoing Republican support to do away with the Earned Income Tax Credit which helps the poorest Americans. They called Americans living on $12,000 a year "Lucky Duckies."

If you agree with this position, then you are a Republican.

Republicans have been actively chocking off school funds across the nation since the early 90's leaving an education system that is under-funded and struggling. Now, school vouchers give parents a choice to pull their kids from under-funded and under performing schools. This loss of revenue will leave the schools even further under-funded and under-performing. It is s self fulfilling prophecy.

The Republican attitude behind vouchers is that the value of public education is selfishly and directly related to their own children. My money = my taxes = my kid's education. This flies in the face of every reason we have public education. The value to you isn't in your kid, but in the woman who operates on your kid, or the EMT who rescues you from a car wreck, or simply the kid you rely on to give you the right amount of change. Public education is about building a competent and responsive workforce. It is about community.

If you don't believe in strong public education, then you are a Republican.

Social Security is an issue facing not just America, but every industrialized nation on Earth. I believe Italy will be the first to hit the curve. Every social democracy on the planet faces it. We are one of the few where the debate isn't about saving it, but how to scrap it. Again, a social safety net is of massive benefit to a society in addition to the moral and ethical reasoning behind it. So far, the star Republican plan has been privatization. A popular topic while the economy and stock market soared, but in practice, it would have been a disaster. Just look how many retirees private savings have been obliterated by this last downturn. I'd suggest you start by looking up info on Al Gore's plan for Social Security. While the right-wing press made a great deal of fun about his metaphorical lockbox, I believe that concept alone would have added ten or fifteen years of life to it. You mention Social Security drawing from the general fund. In truth, the general fund has borrowed from Social Security for years.

If you think that a well managed and insured safety net for the nations weakest and elderly members is a bad idea. If you think "every man for himself" is a better idea, then you are a Republican.

Affirmative action has done more to create a generation of political and professional peers out of the African American community than any other program in history. On a purely historical basis of fairness, I'm for it. It has given us Colin Powells and Clarence Thomases right along with thousands of other doctors, lawyers, and role models for an entire community.

The other reason for it is more practical. Students attending overwhelmingly white schools will find themselves crippled in the future workplace where minorities will be the majority. A lack of cultural understanding will cost this country quite a bit both abroad and at home. In the case you cite, the University says it has a duty to the students to provide a diverse community.

Finally, for many of these students, this will be their first chance to excel. We've already discussed under funded schools so bad you'd consider vouchers. Can we reasonably expect the products of the worst of this system to perform on par with the products of the most expensive private schools? In the long run, that's what is created. An education system of haves and have nots. For many of these students, this is the first crack at a real education and they excel.

If you are for an educational survival of the fittest, and see no social, moral, or practical reasons for promoting minority education, then you are a Republican.

Finally, prescription drugs and universal healthcare. If your biggest beef is that a few of those billionaires and zillionares grandma’s might take advantage of the system, then don’t worry. They have been paying their taxes like the rest of us. At only 2% of the population, their prescriptions are a small price to pay for prescription benefits for everyone.

If you’d rather some grandmother eat Alpo to afford her blood pressure medicine rather than live in a world where Gate’s granny gets hers too, then you are a Republican.

On to Healthcare… There are several studies that show America at the bottom of the healthcare services curve. This is mostly due to the massive influence of privatized medicine and HMO plans. Think of America as one big society for a moment and compare total healthcare expenses to those of other nations. Ours are already a little bit more. This includes your employer’s insurance premiums (if they offer insurance), your co-pay, out of pocket, etc. Now compare the quality of care received on average. America is at the bottom.

What's going on here? Well, at every point profit, marketing, administration, lobbying, and legal fees are extracted from the American system, patient care is diminished. Every dollar spent on a marketing campaign to get people to take more Claritin costs us not only the lost value of the dollar in patient care, but the time spent in millions of doctor visits to explain to the patient why they don’t NEED Claritin just because they saw it on TV. Our system is designed to make a profit, not provide healthcare.

If you think making money off of the sick is more important than healing them, then you are a Republican.

Finally, Bill Frist, our new Republican Senate Majority leader has made the healthcare agenda pretty clear. He helped scuttle the patient’s bill of rights. He will limit exposure of theses HMOs and Drug Companies to liability. The $250,000 cap on lawsuits was bandied about by former house member and Republican Bob Barr. That would guarantee it is cheaper to let cancer patients die and pay off the lawsuit. Will that help patient care?

Frist had the amendment inserted into the Homeland Defense Bill that will protect Ely Lilly from ongoing vaccine lawsuits. Does that help healthcare or homeland security?

Frist didn’t vote or pay much attention to politics until he was in his 30’s. Around then, Hillary Clinton started on her national healthcare plan. Frist’s family fortune comes from the HCA HMO. It is the family business, the source of their wealth. After lobbying congress for a time, Frist decided to cut out the middleman and become a congressman. His concern for our health runs so deep that he has championed smoking for 12-year-olds. He is a heart and lung surgeon. The hypocrisy and irony are awesome. Do you think he cares about the healthcare of Americans or preserving profit?

After all this is taken into account, reexamine the Canadian system where everyone pays, everyone benefits, and nobody ever spend their twilight years BEGGING for the healthcare they spent their lives paying for.

Think long and hard before becoming a Republican. Realize all the costs and look down the road at the consequences. I’m a Democrat because I prefer reason to rhetoric. I’m a Democrat because I believe in the golden rule. I’m a Democrat because I believe that the rights and freedoms of individuals are worth more than those of corporations. I’m a Democrat because I believe it is the DUTY of the wealthy, young, strong, and able-bodied to champion the rights of the poor, elderly, weak, and the sick. It makes us a stronger nation.

I can give you moral, ethical, and financial reasons for my being a Democrat, but I’ll leave you with this practical one. Be a Democrat because at some point you or someone you know will be poor, weak, elderly or sick. When that time comes, it will be too late to change your mind.

[KaraokeKarlton]

9. You sound like an Independent swing voter to me

That's what I am. I don't like the far right or the far left, or any radicalism. I believe in a balanced budget, paying our debts, not spending more than we have, not wasting tax dollars and providing good social services that work properly and are cost effective. Although I don't like that abortions happen, I support them being legal. I support gun rights strongly. I don't care what anyone else does in their bedroom as long as it doesn't impact me directly. I think everyone should have the same rights and opportunities as well as the same responsibilities. I don't generally trust politicians and usually find myself voting for the lesser of the two evils, if at all.

I'm a registered Independent, as I am staying and I'm supporting Howard Dean in 2004. Since I live in Vermont, I know how Dean operates, and that he's a good, honest man who serves the people, not himself or big business.

[Skittles]

10. a "fiscal conservative"

Gawd, spare me

[Jason600]

13. your attitude will spare you of any victory

[spooky3]

23. Jason, I also think you may find a kindred spirit

in Dean or Edwards or some others in the Democratic party, and many of us here. I think they share your general views; I don't know enough about your specifics to be able to guess about the rest of the "match."

Why not check out their websites and see if you agree?

In any case, welcome!

[Jason600]

25. thanks

[Iris]

28. excuse me, but there are still a few Democrats holding office

throughout the country

[Jason600]

33. I dont understnd your point

democrats holding office has nothing to do with what my response was about. Heck, it wasn't even political. Sorry for the misunderstanding

[La_Serpiente]

11. Let me just share with you a little bit of the Republican Party

Democrats has been the victim of the Repulican Party for quite a while. There was the Clinton impeachment, and, ironically, it was the Republican Senators that filibustered (well, not technically, but we'll use that term) the judicial appointments of Clinton's nominees. In fact, they didn't even give them a hearing.

Over the years, we have been humiliated and braided as communists, socialists, terrorists, Saddaam appeasers, you've heard it all.

Take for example Ann Coulter's book "Treason". Must I say more?

We've been branded as unpatriotic. We're seen weak on national security because most of our party activists (not the Democratic politicians now) didn't support the war. Take for example Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in war, and was voted out because he was labeled "unpatriotic".

California, Texas, Colorado, Florida, and now, Philidelphia...do you see it? I hope you do.

I'm not trying to attack the Republicans here (although technically I am) but that's not the point.

You can consider us an endagered species now. It's the internet and websites like Democratic Underground that have provided us a refuge for our political discourse. Without websites like these, we would be a party without any organization.

However, we're still fighting for that dream that one day, we will have a nation that would listen to us. We keep that hope burning like a flame in our heart.

If you would like to join us on our crusade, welcome to the party.

[Jason600]

17. yes, but...........

Ok, lets let hang out. I see so many democrat's who have good ideas and would make great leaders, but then it appears that the sh-- floats to the top. I hope to god that many of the dem's running truly dont think that they have a chance in hell, because they dont. So what you get is, several screw-ups who rip apart everyone else and then others who make the independents question the Dem party. I aggree that the Republicans try to also rip apart the Dem's especially on patriotism, well, on anything they can. And the other issues such as gay rights, I dont see the issue. How would sexual preference have anything to do with anything; Im sick of the R's old stupid argueements. I am against abortion, but also dont believe I nor anyone lese have the right to tell someone else what to do. All of the things listed by another message I believe in as well. I guess I see something that scares me with the bush2 administration. The possibilities of so many attacks on human rights that I seem to be smelling somthing similar to.... fascism? I would stand with every extremist "wacko" there is against this. Im everywhere in this but lost my train of thought I guess

[La_Serpiente]

21. Actually, I somewhat concur with you

I think gay rights is just a Democratic Party thing. The Log Cabin Republicans are so weak and afraid, they don't speak up. I've been to their website and they don't criticize President Bush when he proclaims marriage protection week on the same day that Matthew Shepard died. Bush is just pandering to his base, just like how he's pandering to the Cubans in Miami.

Honestly, I agree with you. Our Democrats don't really have a plan. Our leaders have failed us. They have abandoned their traditional Democratic principles. And they really don't have any vision. I understand what you're talking about.

I think a lot of Democrats voice my frustration. I say (and a lot of people agree with me on this one) to get rid of the career politicians and get some "new bloods" in the party because obviously, the Washington Democrats don't even listen to their voters anymore.

Is your fear justified? Definetly. In fact, it is good that you are questioning what you feel. Recognition of the fear is the first step to abolishing it. We've been mentioning on this board for months on how so many people out there don't realize what's going on with this administration. The environment? Lousiansa will be in the sea 40 years from now if Bush keeps it up. School system? There will be no money for the schools. The military? They are spending so much money, there will be no money for anything else. The military spending must stop. It's ridiculous. We should be donating more money to human development projects like helping developing countries create water systems for their countries instead of funding the building of another Berlin wall in the West Bank and oppressing the Palestinian people.

It's about time someone stood up for the Palestinian people instead of for AIPAC.

However, I don't know if you believe this, but I believe that if Bush is not stopped, we will see the emergence of WW III. I'm not joking, I'm dead serious.

So it's good that your questioning President Bush. I'm hoping that there are others like you.

And by the way, we don't just tolerate homosexuals on this site...we accept them. Just wanted to say that because sometimes, people might feel uncomfortable around them out of sheer fear which was instilled in them.

[Selwynn]

18. Why?

"I feel that I am more right leaning on issues of money and government."

Why? What do you base these feelings on?

That's really the first step in answering your question.

[Jason600]

27. stereotypes i would guess...trying to be honest

[mitchum]

34. I was wondering the same thing, Selwynn

[Cronus Protagonist]

19. Here, check out the Real Republican Platform

http://cronus.com/platform

Click Here To See Fair & Balanced Buttons, Stickers & Magnets!>

[blondeatlast]

20. You sound to me like a Libertarian, especially with the Anarchy avatar.

That, to me, speaks volumes.

[Jason600]

24. why????

my view of less gov should fit real well with the symbol. But, I am not stupid enough to think that a vaccum will not be filled. I also sort of picked the symbol to symbolize my current conflicting thoughts I guess.

[LoneStarLiberal]

35. Trading Federal for Franchised

I have many libertarian sympathies as well.

To address the most fundamental libertarian call to arms, I am quite afraid of what the Bush administration has done and what they will do if given another four years.

It is true in a very brutal sense that they are tearing government down...the very parts of government that guarantee the poor a minimum standard of life and that protect the middle class from unchecked corporate greed.

Less government in the Bush administration's dialect means more opportunity for corporate greed. They are not truly talking about "less government," but rather more corporate government and public government. It's a trade off of Federal bureaucracy for franchised bureaucracy.

[Iris]

32. Compromise

I don't know where people get the idea that in a Democracy they can have everything they want. Which is where the small special interest groups come in. I think what is lacking in most political dialogue these days is any sort of spirit of compromise.

[quaker bill]

36. Conservative Economics are BS

Voting for repugs on economics is simply wrong. The entire theory is based in a gross misunderstanding of macroeconomics.

The magical notion that an unregulated capitalist system works to the public benefit is flatly absurd. There is no long term economic evidence to back up this assertion.

Unregulated capitalist systems exploit child labor, cause rivers to catch fire, have repeated boom and bust cycles, expand economic disparity. Further they just generally cause a bidding war between locales and countries for lowest wages, lowest services, lowest benefits, and on and on.

The entire notion that giving the wealthy more money to that they will "create" jobs is also nuts. Rich people do not start businesses out of a general desire to do good for their community. The do so to make more money. In this regard they look for an opportunity to provide a good or service the public is demanding. This happens when the middle class has disposable income.

Furthermore, it is very rare for a wealthy person to use his/her personal funds to start a business. They generally incorporate and go to the bank and get a loan. Incorporating is done with the specific concern to protect their personal assets, should the business not work out, in fact that is the whole damn point.

The whole repug economic program is nothing but a load of self-serving hogwash.

The old saw is simply true. "If you want to live like a Republican, vote for a Democrat"

[Jason600]

39. so......

now I know why republicans are wrong on economics, so why are you right, and on what. You have told me what you do not believe in, now tell me what you do and why please.

[eleny]

37. I would refer you back to soupkitchen's response, It's #2...

adding to it the recent advances in family medical leave. Reason being that I was able to keep my parents out of nursing homes because of it. And then, I retired to take care of mom in her last years when she needed us most. We kept them off Medicaid which would have been way more expensive than the cost of my family leave pay (being able to use my own sick leave for their care).

Anyhow, after listing the programs that were all developed and pushed through Congress by the Dems, I would then ask myself which ones in your life, Jason, are you willing to give up. And how are you preparing to provide those benefitrs to yourself on your own.

When I was little, I was taught that sharing things that belonged to me - a toy, my time, a bite out of my sandwich - never was going to make me less happy or deprived. Sharing the best part of myself only makes you stronger. If you feel that way at all in your heart, then you're probably a Dem and a bit "left leaning".

So, it's not a matter of who is "right" and that's where you belong. It's a matter of knowing yourself and then being true to that part of you.

All the best in your journey. I hope you stick around here. The light is always in the window.

[Jason600]

38. thanks