Political affiliation Democrat/Republican/Independent

[Derwood]

I've often thought that Nancy Pelosi and Mike Huckabee are pretty much the same person

[Guest]

Color me puzzled, there's barely a difference between Republicans and Democrats.

 

Couldn't disagree more. I wonder if you're even being serious.

 

Color me puzzled, there's barely a difference between Republicans and Democrats.

 

Couldn't disagree more. I wonder if you're even being serious.

 

See this is why people think it's a joke account.

 

I'm not saying. I'm just saying.

 

There are a lot of people who feel the same way as Murt.

[biittner77]

Except for a couple issues most Dem and Rep. are alike. Part of getting elected is having to appeal to the swing vote. So most candidates stay close to the center. Granted there are extremes on both ends that are markedly different.

 

Which party wastefully spends the most of our money? both of them.

Which party actually does anything to help people? Neither of them.

Which party's wackos are likely to do more harm? That's how people decide to be Republicans or Democrats.

 

The reason why it seems like there are a lot more Liberal Democrats here is because there are a lot of 20 somethings here from the Chicago area. They tend to be more vocal ie post more often. There are lots of members that rarely post. Also, if you're a conservative there's little point in discussing politics on a message board. If I want the Democratic party's talking points for the week I know where to find them online.

[Sammy Sofa]

Also, if you're a conservative there's little point in discussing politics on a message board.

 

Because it confuses and frightens them as if it were demon wizardry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I keed, I keed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe.

[hardcorecubfan]

I've often thought that Nancy Pelosi and Mike Huckabee are pretty much the same person

 

They do have the same hair stylus and they stay at the Holiday Inn Express

[satxcubfan]

 

The reason why it seems like there are a lot more Liberal Democrats here is because there are a lot of 20 somethings here from the Chicago area. They tend to be more vocal ie post more often. There are lots of members that rarely post. Also, if you're a conservative there's little point in discussing politics on a message board. If I want the Democratic party's talking points for the week I know where to find them online.

 

 

I completely agree. This was why I conducted my age demographic poll a couple months ago, to get a better idea on the mindsets of the various age groups.

 

 

And I guess my political affiliation is quite evident by my post count! :wink:

[UK1679666180]

Regardless of age, if you're from the Chicagoland area, odds are you're a democrat.

 

With the voting percentage for Kerry in '04, I believe it was over 80/20 in favor of Kerry.

[Banedon]

Except for a couple issues most Dem and Rep. are alike. Part of getting elected is having to appeal to the swing vote. So most candidates stay close to the center. Granted there are extremes on both ends that are markedly different.

 

Which party wastefully spends the most of our money? both of them.

Which party actually does anything to help people? Neither of them.

Which party's wackos are likely to do more harm? That's how people decide to be Republicans or Democrats.

 

Those are gross generalizations and doesn't help this discussion at all.

 

If anyone truly questions the difference between Republicans and Democrats, this link gives a good overview of the views that each party traditionally holds.

 

Yes, electable candidates need to stay close to the center. That's true. But that doesn't mean there isn't a difference. I think our last two Presidents illustrate that as much as anything.

 

Which party wastefully spends the most of our money?

 

The US had huge deficit (and debt) from the Reagan and the first Bush administration. When Clinton left office, he had a $127 billion surplus. Last year, Bush had a $163 billion deficit and that was the lowest that it's been in 5 years, and that's with the war being "off budget".

 

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm

 

Yearly budget deficit: 1962-2001

 

Democrats: $36 billion

Republicans: $190 billion

 

Increase in National Debt:1962-2001

 

Democrats: Total debt increased by $.72 trillion

Republicans: Total debt increased by $3.8 trillion

 

Inflation is increased under Republicans, GDP growth is down under Republicans, and unemployment is higher under Republicans.

[satxcubfan]

Regardless of age, if you're from the Chicagoland area, odds are you're a democrat.

 

With the voting percentage for Kerry in '04, I believe it was over 80/20 in favor of Kerry.

 

 

I believe the odds favor democratic affiliation even more so if you're located in the city of Chicago. I lived in northern Lake County (IL) from 1970 to 1996, and if I remember correctly, it was mostly a republican county.

[NCCubFan]

I lived in northern Lake County (IL) from 1970 to 1996, and if I remember correctly, it was mostly a republican county.

My memory is that it was when I lived there (1962 through 1975). If I recall you used to live in Waukegan; I lived just west of Gurnee. My recollection is that Illinois was usually a Republican state except for Chicago.

[satxcubfan]

I lived in northern Lake County (IL) from 1970 to 1996, and if I remember correctly, it was mostly a republican county.

My memory is that it was when I lived there (1962 through 1975). If I recall you used to live in Waukegan; I lived just west of Gurnee. My recollection is that Illinois was usually a Republican state except for Chicago.

 

 

Good memory, NC! Been a long time since we had that discussion.

[Banedon]

I lived in northern Lake County (IL) from 1970 to 1996, and if I remember correctly, it was mostly a republican county.

My memory is that it was when I lived there (1962 through 1975). If I recall you used to live in Waukegan; I lived just west of Gurnee. My recollection is that Illinois was usually a Republican state except for Chicago.

 

 

Good memory, NC! Been a long time since we had that discussion.

 

Lets have a moment of silence for the scores of memories that perished so that this one could be retained...... 8-)

[UK1679666180]

Regardless of age, if you're from the Chicagoland area, odds are you're a democrat.

 

With the voting percentage for Kerry in '04, I believe it was over 80/20 in favor of Kerry.

 

 

I believe the odds favor democratic affiliation even more so if you're located in the city of Chicago. I lived in northern Lake County (IL) from 1970 to 1996, and if I remember correctly, it was mostly a republican county.

 

It'll be interesting, Lake Cty. voted for Bush in '04, I think it was 51-49 in favor of him. We'll see how it plays out on Super Tuesday. I'm hoping for record democratic turnouts.

 

plus, my math was way off as far as Kerry/Bush, it was 55-45 in favor of Kerry.

[biittner77]

Except for a couple issues most Dem and Rep. are alike. Part of getting elected is having to appeal to the swing vote. So most candidates stay close to the center. Granted there are extremes on both ends that are markedly different.

 

Which party wastefully spends the most of our money? both of them.

Which party actually does anything to help people? Neither of them.

Which party's wackos are likely to do more harm? That's how people decide to be Republicans or Democrats.

 

Those are gross generalizations and doesn't help this discussion at all.

 

If anyone truly questions the difference between Republicans and Democrats, this link gives a good overview of the views that each party traditionally holds.

 

Yes, electable candidates need to stay close to the center. That's true. But that doesn't mean there isn't a difference. I think our last two Presidents illustrate that as much as anything.

 

Which party wastefully spends the most of our money?

 

The US had huge deficit (and debt) from the Reagan and the first Bush administration. When Clinton left office, he had a $127 billion surplus. Last year, Bush had a $163 billion deficit and that was the lowest that it's been in 5 years, and that's with the war being "off budget".

 

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm

 

Yearly budget deficit: 1962-2001

 

Democrats: $36 billion

Republicans: $190 billion

 

Increase in National Debt:1962-2001

 

Democrats: Total debt increased by $.72 trillion

Republicans: Total debt increased by $3.8 trillion

 

Inflation is increased under Republicans, GDP growth is down under Republicans, and unemployment is higher under Republicans.

 

A the risk of actually contributing to the discussion, look at these figures: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp

 

unemployment figures are fairly level Since Carter left office. The lowest level under Carter was about the highest level under current Bush. They have alot more to do with a lot of other things that have nothing to do with who's president.

 

You mentioned the budget surplus as if it were a good thing. All that meant was they collected too much tax money. The government should never collect more revenue than it needs. They also shouldn't brag about having done so.

 

Speaking of taxes, why is it that the government on the state level keeps raising regressive taxes like sales tax, cigarette tax, gasoline tax etc. and no one complains? In fact, these very people who vote for these taxes that genuinely hurt poor people run and win on the premise of being the party that cares about the people.

 

These numbers with all the bad things that happen "under Republicans" does that mean a Republican President? Republican control of the House? The Senate? All 3? If we're talking about the Presidency then perhaps we should consider the fact that the Republicans have been President 10 more years than the Democrats have. That would kinda explain why they spent more money wouldn't it? Especially considering that 10 of the 18 years of Democratic control were before 1976 at a time when we weren't competing with China for oil. Before NAFTA and before giving China favored Nation status. It was also before we spent the USSR into submission.

 

That's not even the point. They both spend more of our money than we'd like them too. That is why Republicans would love to have an actual fiscal conservative candidate instead of the current administration which has been on the worst spending spree since Marie Antoinette. It's too bad that no more than 3 people are still reading at this point because that was actually a pretty good line if you know anything about Marie Antoinette.

[NCCubFan]

I lived in northern Lake County (IL) from 1970 to 1996, and if I remember correctly, it was mostly a republican county.

My memory is that it was when I lived there (1962 through 1975). If I recall you used to live in Waukegan; I lived just west of Gurnee. My recollection is that Illinois was usually a Republican state except for Chicago.

 

 

Good memory, NC! Been a long time since we had that discussion.

 

Lets have a moment of silence for the scores of memories that perished so that this one could be retained...... 8-)

:lol:

[Skyballer]

Color me puzzled, there's barely a difference between Republicans and Democrats.

 

Couldn't disagree more. I wonder if you're even being serious.

Ay, I meant in the poll results, should've clarified that.

[seanimal]

It's too bad that no more than 3 people are still reading at this point because that was actually a pretty good line if you know anything about Marie Antoinette.

 

That's not even the best line in the post.

[Banedon]

A the risk of actually contributing to the discussion, look at these figures: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp

 

unemployment figures are fairly level Since Carter left office. The lowest level under Carter was about the highest level under current Bush. They have alot more to do with a lot of other things that have nothing to do with who's president.

 

Are we looking at the same numbers? Unemployment went up every year under GHW Bush, then down every year under Clinton, and then up again for the first 3 years of the GW Bush administration. Are you saying that's coincidence?

 

You mentioned the budget surplus as if it were a good thing. All that meant was they collected too much tax money. The government should never collect more revenue than it needs. They also shouldn't brag about having done so.

 

If you really believe this, than I'm not sure there's much we can talk about. You don't believe that it's good to have more money coming in than going out? You don't think that having money available to pay down the MASSIVE national debt is a good thing? Taxes are a fact of life. I don't like paying them any more than the next guy. But what I hate more, is paying them and the government ending up ADDING to the national debt while I'm paying them. If the choice is between wasteful spending, and having a surplus to pay down the national debt, it's a simple choice.

 

These numbers with all the bad things that happen "under Republicans" does that mean a Republican President? Republican control of the House? The Senate? All 3? If we're talking about the Presidency then perhaps we should consider the fact that the Republicans have been President 10 more years than the Democrats have. That would kinda explain why they spent more money wouldn't it? Especially considering that 10 of the 18 years of Democratic control were before 1976 at a time when we weren't competing with China for oil. Before NAFTA and before giving China favored Nation status. It was also before we spent the USSR into submission.

 

These are averages. The number of years doesn't matter. And the header of the chart that I showed you clearly says that it's under Republican Presidents/Adminstrations. It's regardless of the congressional majority.

 

That's not even the point. They both spend more of our money than we'd like them too. That is why Republicans would love to have an actual fiscal conservative candidate instead of the current administration which has been on the worst spending spree since Marie Antoinette. It's too bad that no more than 3 people are still reading at this point because that was actually a pretty good line if you know anything about Marie Antoinette.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree. The definition of a surplus is that you aren't spending more money than you're bringing in, which is what happened during the last Democratic Presidential administration. So you're complaining about them spending too much money, but then you say a surplus is a bad thing. You can't have it both ways.

[CubmanPi]

Like in many elections, I'm abstaining from voting due to lack of a decent option. Actual issues aside, the change I'd most like to see in government is increased political diversity. When the options are giant douche and turd sandwich, I'll take my chances with Puffy.

[CubinNY]

Like in many elections, I'm abstaining from voting due to lack of a decent option. Actual issues aside, the change I'd most like to see in government is increased political diversity. When the options are giant douche and turd sandwich, I'll take my chances with Puffy.

That's a BS cop out.

[seanimal]

That's a bit harsh. Abstaining from the vote is a perfectly acceptable and understandable form of protest.

 

I don't get the bitchiness at people who don't vote. At the very least, by not voting they make your vote more valuable and important. You should be thanking those people, not deriding them.

[Banedon]

That's a bit harsh. Abstaining from the vote is a perfectly acceptable and understandable form of protest.

 

I don't get the bitchiness at people who don't vote. At the very least, by not voting they make your vote more valuable and important. You should be thanking those people, not deriding them.

 

That's all well and good, but the people that don't vote better damn well not bitch about whoever gets voted in. They had their chance to contribute.

[bukie]

That's a bit harsh. Abstaining from the vote is a perfectly acceptable and understandable form of protest.

 

I don't get the bitchiness at people who don't vote. At the very least, by not voting they make your vote more valuable and important. You should be thanking those people, not deriding them.

 

That's all well and good, but the people that don't vote better damn well not bitch about whoever gets voted in. They had their chance to contribute.

 

That's all well and good, but when there are no good candidates available (say, for example, 2004), I'd just as soon vote "None of the Above". In that case, I reserve my right to complain about all the candidates.

[CubinNY]

That's a bit harsh. Abstaining from the vote is a perfectly acceptable and understandable form of protest.

 

I don't get the bitchiness at people who don't vote. At the very least, by not voting they make your vote more valuable and important. You should be thanking those people, not deriding them.

No, it is pretty much a BS cop out. I love South Park as much as the next cynical slacker, but that reference is apropos of nothing. It is well within someone's right not to vote but reducing the contest to a douche vs. crap makes the decision not to vote one of self-induced ignorance. I find it almost impossible to believe that someone who made him or her self aware of the political stance of the candidates running for any office would reduce a choice for that office to such terrible and disgusting metaphor. It's just an excuse to be willfully uninformed. Even Dave Chappelle was at the debate in SC, and I can't think of a better example of a cynical slacker.

[seanimal]

But why is every decision not to vote the outcome of a apathetic slacker? It's not, and abstaining from voting is a conscious decision. The metaphor is just that, a metaphor. The point of the metaphor is what's important, and the point is that for a lot of people (generally well over half), who on a general level probably feel as if they care about governance and citizenship just as much as anyone else, feel that the options presented to them aren't worth deciding over. Perhaps even, at worst, the person just doesn't feel the need to participate in that specific civic duty. And how on Earth is it at all reprehensible for a person who feels disengaged from the political system to leave the decisions (and they are important) to those who are? That's not irresponsible or the product of being willfully ignorant or what have you, it's actually really responsible if you think about it. It gives more weight to individuals like you and I who do chose to go out and cast votes.