It's nigh impossible for one to accurately define a Republican and Democrat, since their ideals breathe and change over time; we have seen this happen over the history of the United States. The gray answer can be given, though there are plenty of exceptions. Republicans express conservative ideals and support classic, traditional liberalism. They believe the Constitution should be interpreted as narrow and close-as-possible as it was originally intended. For a strong economic achievement, they stress upon promoting laissez-faire economics and conservative values when it comes to the free market.
Democrats favor a loose, "living" interpretation of the Constitution, interpreting it as to how it would stand in modern times. There are two sub parties of the Democratic party, which belong to Progressives and Liberals, who take place on center/center-left of the political spectrum, as opposed to the opposite for Republicans. The fiscal policies of Democrats reflect more public appearances, meaning having more government-run organizations along with privately-owned, whereas Republicans support more privately-owned priorities. Democrats have consistently upheld the federal aid programs such as Social Security, Medicaire and Medicaid, and support a progressive tax structure designed to shrink the gap in economic inequality.
I won't get into social policies like abortion, gun rights, same-sex equality, and all that, because that's where it gets really gray.
Just to add on, the Republicans believe in the reduction of the Federal government, or government in general. Of course, each party has their own factions, and hence some Republicans might be tentative about civil unions whilst others are hell bent against them.
I'm going to stick with the definition I got from my mom when I asked her what the difference was between they two. "One will stab you in the back and the other will stab you in the gut." I was never told which was which.
Just to add on, the Republicans believe in the reduction of the Federal government, or government in general. Of course, each party has their own factions, and hence some Republicans might be tentative about civil unions whilst others are hell bent against them.
Unless it has to do with basic human rights it seems. Seriously the GOP this year has been flipping insane.
Just off the top of my head, -Against gay marriage. -Government should regulate abortion (For an out right ban or at least create rules making it harder or create emotional blackmail adding to an already difficult situation). -Many of them this year have been trying to force particular religious views. -While there was Democratic supported and it was co-sponsored by a democrat SOPA was initially introduced by a republican. -CISPA was also proposed by a republican (John McCain) and majority of it's support is from the republican party with 206 votes to pass the bill.
Me? I'm a conservative and I lean more towards Republicans. I hate democr**s and liberals like obama.
why is it everytime I am on, you just happen to spew out more of these kinds of things? let me ask you, do you really know what both sides stand for in the modern world, besides their social stances (gay marriage, etc.)? I guarantee you that if jesus is around today, he would be more democratic than any of his current "followers" in the republican party.
Just off the top of my head, -Against gay marriage. -Government should regulate abortion (For an out right ban or at least create rules making it harder or create emotional blackmail adding to an already difficult situation).
Ok so gay marriage could be considered I right but I donât believe in it, but abortion?!? Really youâre saying that I have a human right to kill my baby because I donât want it that doesnât seam human at all
Me? I'm a conservative and I lean more towards Republicans. I hate democr**s and liberals like obama.
Stop posting stuff like this itâs making you and the Republican Party look like a bunch of dumb *****
Really youâre saying that I have a human right to kill my baby because I donât want it that doesnât seam human at all
Well, if it's coming out, you don't have the right to "kill" it, but when it's in the womb, it's a bag of cells, not able to sustain life without its mother. IT IS NOT A PERSON!!!!!
Also, this is the wrong thread to debate this. Please take your remarks about abortion-a legal right under Roe v. Wade I might add-to the appropriate place.
Me? I'm a conservative and I lean more towards Republicans. I hate democr**s and liberals like obama.
Do you hate donkeys and the colour blue/light blue? Please explain, I inquire of your reasons, govna'. (P.S. Yes, now I can finally put "colour" or "favour" or "shoppe" without it saying it's wrong! British English FTW!)
Ok so gay marriage could be considered I right but I donât believe in it, but abortion?!? Really youâre saying that I have a human right to kill my baby because I donât want it that doesnât seam human at all
What we are dealing with isn't yet a person, it's simply a potential for a person. We do have to consider the rights of the mother as well. The laws being passed are meant to make an hard situations even harder. Requiring unnecessary procures to be done in order to do nothing more than make the situation as traumatic as possible for a woman who may very well need to have such a procedure done. Regardless of how you feel when we had such procedures as illegal it only cost us more life and resulted in more suffering.
A vegetable or a mentally challenged person can't sustain itself, yet they are people. Sustaining oneself seems quite a poor criterion.
Yes it is a valid argument. The mentally handicapped person is capable of self sustenance. With a fetus or zygote we are talking about a mass of cells that if removed from the woman's body are incapable of surviving on it's own. We are also talking about something that has yet to develop full brain activity. In most cases of abortion the brain hasn't even taken over the basic involuntary functions of the fetus.
But let's try to get a working definition of person here. Etymologically a person is defined as,
1) possesses continuous consciousness over time 2) who is therefore capable of framing representations about the world, formulating plans and acting on them.
A vegetable and a mentally challenged person won't be able to do that.
A mentally challenged person is very much capable of this. Someone who is in a persistence vegetative state would have at one point met the requirements but no longer does. At such a point they wouldn't even meet the first point.
