Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are we still using Republican & Democrat, to describe a political candidate?
R & D have absolutely no meaning in todays politics. Why still use them, except to confuse the politically uneducated?
I see Republican & Democrat shouted over and over, yet those labels mean nothing today.
The D and the R is a stamp of approval.
The Republican and Democratic Parties are the only the two viable political parties this nation has. No other party comes close to their organization and the quality of candidates they can consistently march out. You may say that they are consistently bad candidates, but third party candidates are that much worse. Therefore, the backing of one of the political parties lends credibility to the candidates campaign.
Most voters identify themselves as Republicans or Democrats or they have an affinity for either party. It has to be acknowledged that many (maybe most) vote for the party (or what they believe the party is) rather than the candidate unless the candidate is a real dynamic personality.
It is a very rare instance that a person can get elected without the backing of either of the two parties. There you have it.
The Republican and Democratic Parties are the only the two viable political parties this nation has. No other party comes close to their organization and the quality of candidates they can consistently march out. You may say that they are consistently bad candidates, but third party candidates are that much worse. Therefore, the backing of one of the political parties lends credibility to the candidates campaign.
Most voters identify themselves as Republicans or Democrats or they have an affinity for either party. It has to be acknowledged that many (maybe most) vote for the party (or what they believe the party is) rather than the candidate unless the candidate is a real dynamic personality.
It is a very rare instance that a person can get elected without the backing of either of the two parties. There you have it.
Rare....non-existent. Without support from the big two they will be just taking up space.
Why are we still using Republican & Democrat, to describe a political candidate?
R & D have absolutely no meaning in todays politics. Why still use them, except to confuse the politically uneducated?
I see Republican & Democrat shouted over and over, yet those labels mean nothing today.
We use Democrat and Republican party designation to separate the party that likes socialism, communism and giant government from the party that does not.
We use Democrat and Republican party designation to separate the party that likes socialism, communism and giant government from the party that does not.
NAAAA it's to better keep control of the sheeple who happen to follow one or the other & listen to particular talking points of both parties. Its easier than thinking for one's self.
Language changes and evolves. "Pretty" for example, today is considered a compliment. Several hundred years ago it would be taken as a condescending comment and would in no way endear you to the hottie you called pretty. "Gay" has an entirely different meaning than just a century ago. English today would sound like an alien tongue to an Englishman living 800 years ago.
It's neither good or bad but can be confusing during transition. Clearly the way we use language today is quite different from the way our great grandparents, or even older siblings did. When we read writing from 200 years ago it seems so elegant but that's just how people talked back then. We also have incorrect ideas of how people spoke in the past when we read Shakespeare. No one ever spoke like that! He was a satirist with a wicked sense of humor who enjoyed poking fun at the language.
But it does seem that the definitions of both Democrat and Republican have juxtaposed in the last century. As was pointed out earlier, both have moved closer to corporatist.
While it may be hard sometimes to keep up, (and it is for me) in reality, the Websters definition of any word is far less important than it's common usage. If people started calling pencils blagdorgs continually, Webster would eventually update and the word pencil would become antiquated and obsolete very quickly. Many times I've listened to heated debates between people of different generations who are both in complete agreement but due to different usages seem to be disagreeing. Lost in translation as-it-were.
We can debate the definition of a word all day but all that really matters is how it's used.
We use Democrat and Republican party designation to separate the party that likes socialism, communism and giant government from the party that does not.
That has not been the case in the last several elections(not just president)
The tea party got the Republican party back on focus instead of trying to please the Progressives.
The existence of 2 parties in name is simply an illusion that makes us think we have a choice when we go to elections, when in actuality both the Republican and the Democrat will do exactly the same thing when in power.
Free Trade, endless unwinnable wars, bigger and more abusive government, more giveaways to special interests, overspending and borrowing on a massive scale. Both Parties embrace all these nation-destroying policies 100%.
By making us think everything that is wrong with our country is because the other party is (or was) in power, we fight amongst ourselves instead of uniting against the political class that is VERY satisfied with the way things are now. Only after a lifetime of watching our chosen party win or not win, do we realize it doesn't matter. Nothing changes.
I agree, the terms R and D are useless. The terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" are more descriptive and are much more likely to capture a person's true political orientation.
I suppose, but there are many establishment Republicans who are not conservative.
I suppose, but there are many establishment Republicans who are not conservative.
We are trying to get those guys and gals tossed,(cough Lindsey Graham)
You saw a lot of the establishment Republicans get taken out in the primaries, didn't you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
