What is the difference between Democrat and Republican?

Republicans are more in favor of state sanctioned murder of U.S. Citizens, through the death penalty and overly agressive policing, and the direct and indirect murder of Foreigners, through war while Democrats tend not to be as bloodthirsty and more against the government taking life.

Democrats favor a robust and aggressive foreign policy which makes effective use of all diplomatic tools including negotiation and multilateral action while Republicans favor a more feeble, hobbled foreign policy which uses of a more limited toolbox.

Republicans tend to favor of policies which cause more deaths of children such as lack of effective birth control and less economic regulation on toxic substances know to produce miscarriages while Democrats tend to pursue policies which are more pro life of fetus as well as those individuals not yet in existence.

Republicans are more in favor of concentration of power in the hands of undemocratic, authoritarian institutions like corporations while Democrats tend to be more in favor of power being vested with the democratically elected government of the people.

Democrats are more pro business and free market oriented in that they are more in favor of immigration, while Republicans are more for economic protectionism because they tend to oppose the free movement of human capital and

Republicans tend to be more anti-religion than Democrats in that they do not appear to respect all faiths equally and seem to pursue policies which run orthogonal to even the few faiths that they do sanction.

Tell your teacher his/her question is dumb as a bag of rocks.

 

OP, only advise I can give you is to not tie your vote based on party lines. You should vote for the candidate that you feel is better suited to represent you regardless of which party.

 

Which now defines the law of the land with regards to abortion.

 

I've always liked this quote.

 

Well, not exactly "debunked," especially with the methodological flaws.

_____________________________________________________________

"More serious flaws concern their theoretical abstraction of the two chief variables they relied on to produce and measure their data: race and class. Race is defined as de jure segregation and its demise, period. This has profound consequences for the course of their study because defining the sum totality of race this way predetermines that racial change will be found in the 1960s and not before. One of the linchpins of their analysis is the presumed fact that racial change occurred long after economic change had already come to the South, a circular consequence of conceptualizing race as something so narrow that, methodologically, it has nothing to do with de facto segregation, lynching, disfranchisement, convict-lease, employment fairness, gender relations, access to housing, education, recreation, credit, or even the 1936 watershed of blacks switching their support from the party of Abraham Lincoln to the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Likewise, for their measuring instrument, the whole galaxy of southern economic relations is reduced to agriculture and the decline in numbers of people engaged in it. While agriculture is surely an important economic activity in the South, it does not come close to composing the universe, or even a constellation, of what made up class relations in the South. Nor does this type of dual-variable methodology begin to address the powerful, intricate, and enduring relationship in the South between class and race (one that the authors dismiss as confusing elision)?or, for that matter, religion, gender, culture, and hyperpatriotism/militarism?the very things that most often prevent white southerners from voting their class interests. While defining foundational concepts in such an exclusive, artificial, and rigid way is perhaps a neat and user-friendly way to generate data, unfortunately it bears little resemblance to reality in the past or the present. Moreover, race and class were not completely separable in the past, even for the convenience of academic disciplines today."

Review by: Glenn Feldman
The Journal of Southern History
Vol. 73, No. 3 (Aug., 2007), pp. 746-748

 

At first, truth was important. Then, half truth. Then misleading is ok. Then lie sometime. Then hey, it doesn't really matter what I said at all. Full throttle lying.

It's simply amazing the things that come out of the mouth of these candidates. It's used to be, the mind has no shame, but the brain kept it under control. Now, the brain doesn't give a fk and even encourages it.

 

The major difference is that one party swallows and one party spits out but they both suck.

 

False.

 

I think that politicians have been lying since the beginning of time. They travel around and tell the crowds what they want to hear. It's just being recorded now so it's become painfully obvious.

 

I might be wrong, but it sure doesn't seem that way. Politicians always bend the truth. Lie from time to time. Outright lies is new and more disturbingly, is a recent standard for a whole wing of one party.

 

Different regions carries different flavors.

Someone like Chris Christie might as well be a Democrat in some backwoods state that relies heavily on federal money.