Have the Republicans done anything positive for America in the past 8 years?

[Toho]

as a Canadian looking to my neighbors to the south I wonder sometimes why all the craziness down there. Have the republicans done anything positive for America in the past 8 years? Why are people constantly voting for them? I just dont understand it.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

They make the democrats look better

[O'Hea]

Well, in their defense neither party has done much of anything in these past few congresses. But no, nothing that I'm aware of. They're tied up with infighting and just about the only thing they can agree on is that they want to undermine Obama's agenda as much as possible.

[Toho]

Well the democrats seem to be trying to do something... anything really, but Republicans block anything they try to do and when they do it just seems to be instrumental to the nation.
For example when congress was applauding the Israeli Prime Minister like an ACDC concert I was just embarrassed for America... The strongest nation in human existence and yet they clap like fools for some small and tiny nation that could barely survive on its own without their support. Mind boggling really.

maybe the conservatives of this forum could give me their perspective on this... because I just don't understand it.

[Roma_Victrix]

Well the democrats seem to be trying to do something... anything really, but Republicans block anything they try to do and when they do it just seems to be instrumental to the nation.
For example when congress was applauding the Israeli Prime Minister like an ACDC concert I was just embarrassed for America... The strongest nation in human existence and yet they clap like fools for some small and tiny nation that could barely survive on its own without their support. Mind boggling really.

maybe the conservatives of this forum could give me their perspective on this... because I just don't understand it.

To even begin to understand that, you'd have to take into account the strange Protestant evangelical support in the US for Israel (called "Christian Zionism"), which is hinged on the idea that Israel must remain a Jewish state so that when Jesus the savior has his second coming he forces the Jews to convert or die. That's because anyone who doesn't side with dear old Jesus in that instance is naturally in league with the Anti-Christ, whose arrival will be spurred by the hypothetical rebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem (the Third Temple). The Republican Party is centered mostly in the South, beneath the aptly named "Bible Belt," home of the nutty evangelical movements in our present time that swallow this sort of Biblical bile. Nearly everyone in New England and the West Coast thinks this is all insanity, of course, and I'd venture to say a lot of folks in the Midwest (Illinois, Michigan, etc.) feel the same way. Once you understand the undercurrent of religious craziness in the South, only then will you come to understand the actions and words of their elected representatives, the vast majority of whom are Bible-thumping Republicans.

Aside from the true believers, you also have Republicans who side with Israel because the "defense" industry lobby is interested in getting payrolled by the US federal government for another Middle East adventure, this time in the lush and pleasant theocracy of Iran. The oil industry would have a vested interest in that too, naturally.

[sumskilz]

Well the democrats seem to be trying to do something... anything really, but Republicans block anything they try to do and when they do it just seems to be instrumental to the nation.

Depending on one's perspective, blocking the things the Democrats want to do could be the best thing they've done for America. Ideologically, though not always in practice, Republicans are about less government.

Aside from the true believers, you also have Republicans who side with Israel because the "defense" industry lobby is interested in getting payrolled by the US federal government for another Middle East adventure, this time in the lush and pleasant theocracy of Iran. The oil industry would have a vested interest in that too, naturally.

You're missing something, most US aid money to Israel is required to be spent on US manufactured arms, and the US has claim to any of Israel's technological innovations which involved US funding. This arrangement is hardly a partisan issue however, since expansions to it occurred under both the Clinton and Obama's administrations as well as under Republican administrations.

[Claudius Gothicus]

In regards to the strong and unrestricted support the GOP has been showing toward hard-line positions (not to say unreasonable ones) of the Israeli governing coalition one has to understand that the Republican party is using foreign policy as a tool to agitate partisan politics. For the red hawks at congress supporting Bibi is attacking the Democrats, specifically Obama. Netanyahu's "approach" is a self-centered plan that aside from maintaining a hostile stance toward the persians does nothing, no serious world power (like the US) can afford such a policy indeterminately. So the GOP clapping is nothing more than a way of attacking Obama's plan to relax the tense situation with the Iranian government and paint him as a weakling in the midst of the chaotic operations against ISIS.

For how long can such an irrational plan of action, Bibi's "we won't compromise or cooperate" plan, be kept on course without crashing into another regional crisis only god knows, especially now that Likud is about to form a new governing coalition (again with the same partners) and the Syrian situation continues to deteriorate.

[Big War Bird]

as a Canadian looking to my neighbors to the south I wonder sometimes why all the craziness down there. Have the republicans done anything positive for America in the past 8 years? Why are people constantly voting for them? I just dont understand it.

What is "positive" supposed to mean? If by "positive" you mean forcibly taking the earned money and possession of one group of people and giving it to another, then no republicans haven't done much positive. If on the other hand you take it as a positive the protection of people from such deprivations then they have done or attempted to do quite a bit.

For just one example, the coffee fetcher (Bill Clinton's term for the Barrack Obama) recently proposed a scheme to seize large portions of children's college savings, known as 529 plans. Republicans opposition squashed that.

[Symphony]

as a Canadian looking to my neighbors to the south I wonder sometimes why all the craziness down there. Have the republicans done anything positive for America in the past 8 years? Why are people constantly voting for them? I just dont understand it.

Because, as a Canadian national making a just-curious, not-at-all-partisan, no-agenda-here-no-really observation, I'm sure that the very first thing that popped into your head when observing "all the craziness down there" is that the Republicans must somehow be to blame, either through action or inaction? Not "why can't the Americans get their together?", or "what's not functioning well in their government?"....you jump straight to "Hmm, what have the Republicans done?" Riiiiiiiight....

Look, these are the D&D forums...we're all friends here. Everybody has their bias; just admit yours, make your point, and move on. Don't play disingenuous games of false naivety.


Answering the question in the way it was asked, if not necessarily the spirit in which it was asked...

You do understand that, until just recently, the Republicans have only had tenuous control of the lower house of the legislature, correct? The Democrats have controlled the Executive and upper house of the legislature. For the last 10-12 years, we've been stuck in a cycle of extreme partisanship, where neither party has substantially reached across the aisle, or stepped across the aisle themselves, in any kind of meaningful way. When every issue is a partisan issue, the majority, controlling party does what it wants, and the minority party does what it can to block or delay the issues that bother them the most.

Under those circumstances, yes, the Democrats have "done more" (in volume, if not in quality)...because they had the ability to do more. The Republicans have blocked, delayed, or opposed much of that, as opposed to accomplishing much of their own...because that's what they've had the power to do.

Two-party politics (in its most extreme form) in action.

[Toho]

What is "positive" supposed to mean? If by "positive" you mean forcibly taking the earned money and possession of one group of people and giving it to another, then no republicans haven't done much positive. If on the other hand you take it as a positive the protection of people from such deprivations then they have done or attempted to do quite a bit.

For just one example, the coffee fetcher (Bill Clinton's term for the Barrack Obama) recently proposed a scheme to seize large portions of children's college savings, known as 529 plans. Republicans opposition squashed that.

You mean taxes? yes we have that in Canada, France, UK and pretty much any other first world nation with healthcare and state subsidized education to various degrees.

Because, as a Canadian national making a just-curious, not-at-all-partisan, no-agenda-here-no-really observation, I'm sure that the very first thing that popped into your head when observing "all the craziness down there" is that the Republicans must somehow be to blame, either through action or inaction? Not "why can't the Americans get their together?", or "what's not functioning well in their government?"....you jump straight to "Hmm, what have the Republicans done?" Riiiiiiiight....

Well most of the negative things I hear about the democrats is Obamacare which sounds like an american attempt national healthcare. So I see nothing wrong with it versus what I hear from the republicans... oh boy...

Look, these are the D&D forums...we're all friends here. Everybody has their bias; just admit yours, make your point, and move on. Don't play disingenuous games of false naivety.

Answering the question in the way it was asked, if not necessarily the spirit in which it was asked...

You do understand that, until just recently, the Republicans have only had tenuous control of the lower house of the legislature, correct? The Democrats have controlled the Executive and upper house of the legislature. For the last 10-12 years, we've been stuck in a cycle of extreme partisanship, where neither party has substantially reached across the aisle, or stepped across the aisle themselves, in any kind of meaningful way. When every issue is a partisan issue, the majority, controlling party does what it wants, and the minority party does what it can to block or delay the issues that bother them the most.
Under those circumstances, yes, the Democrats have "done more" (in volume, if not in quality)...because they had the ability to do more. The Republicans have blocked, delayed, or opposed much of that, as opposed to accomplishing much of their own...because that's what they've had the power to do.

Why is opposing democrat legislation the only positive thing they can do? How many times have they tried to reverse obamacare? Also there are the red states that make it legal to fire people based on their sexuality or deny people the right to marriage. Thats the craziness I am talking about, every time I hear about them I am just shocked. If you have some shocking stories about the democrats please do share because I want to understand why someone would pick the republicans over the democrats.
Don't get me wrong, they are both in my eyes, its just that one of them smells less than the other.
And I am also kind of worried if they are elected in 2016, pretty sure they are going to start a war with Iran, they already sent that ridiculous letter to them... btw is there any historical precedent to that?

[Symphony]

Why is opposing democrat legislation the only positive thing they can do? How many times have they tried to reverse obamacare?

If they genuinely disagree with it, and genuinely believe it'll do the country more harm than good, then yes, that's the best thing they can be doing. Moreover, that's a politician's job; to advocate the things they think will be good for their constituents, and oppose those things they think will be bad for them. When you don't have the power to push anything through on your own, you'll be doing more of the latter than the former.

In your mind, what would qualify as them "doing something good"?

Also there are the red states that make it legal to fire people based on their sexuality

Which state is that?

or deny people the right to marriage.

Yes, that's an ongoing issue (or rather we're seeing the endgame of decades of slow-swelling change) in several states right now. It's charming, but inaccurate, to chalk it up to a binary Republican vs/ Democrat morality play, though. Within the last couple years, California (one of the bluest of blue states) voted in a popular referendum to forbid gay marriage. Slowly but surely, every state, "red" and "blue" is eventually doing (what I believe to be) the right thing, or being led there via judicial intervention. At any rate, you're being extremely simplistic to assume that you can pick a stance on gay marriage based on somebody's party affiliation.

If you have some shocking stories about the democrats please do share

I'll pass. First, you clearly have your own pre-set bias, and what I might consider "shocking" behavior by a Democrat likely wouldn't be all that shocking to you, and I don't want to chase goalposts I already know will probably move. Second, I'd just as soon not sit here and rate each party on the basis of how many things the other has done....that's a primary contributing factor in the extreme partisanship I was discussing earlier.

because I want to understand why someone would pick the republicans over the democrats.

Some reasons (stop me if any of these seem like common sense.....):

- Because you agree with more of an individual candidate's core platform than their opponent's
- Because you believe that an individual candidate is more likely to actually follow through on portions of their core platform that matter to you than their opponent
- Because you believe that (as I do) that social issues eventually take care of themselves regardless of which party is in power, and that fiscal issues don't
- Because Mommy and Daddy always voted a certain way, therefore you do too (applies equally to both parties, by the way)


Generally, you're trying very hard to set up a binary discussion wherein "Republican" = "bad and evil", regardless of the individual politician in question....and binary morality plays like that are rarely very mature or useful. Don't feel too bad...American pundits on both sides just LOVE trying to reduce political questions to the same kind of childish, simplistic equation, so you're in good (....or at least popular) company.

Personally, I find anybody who's so lazy and stupid as to vote purely based on party affiliation to be a stain on the electorate.

If your opinions generally more match the Democrats, then ok, cool....but then poisoning the well by "trying to understand" why somebody would vote Republican, when you've pre-defined everything Republicans do as wrong-headed, is kind of disingenuous and a waste of everybody's time, no?

[War lord]

As a European I see it less as "Democrats good, Republicans bad" more that both sides have been hopelessly polarized into extremist factions whose only policy is to block the other sides policies to appease their radical core voter base. Said core base has conditioned itself to see the other side as evil and "ruining the American way of life". Thus sidelining moderates on both sides. I just happen to find the Democrats less objectionable because they don't have the ties to Bible belt Ultra Conservatism and Amoral Megacorps the Republicans have. Doesn't mean I particularly like either side overall.

[Ulyaoth]

...I want to understand why someone would pick the republicans over the democrats.
Don't get me wrong, they are both in my eyes, its just that one of them smells less than the other.

Yes they are both . The greatest success the democrats have had is in somehow convincing people that they're less somehow than republicans. I support republicans pretty much just to try to limit the amount of damage democrats can do. Most northerners and east coast people who support republicans I'd figure are similar, at least everyone around me I know of that's conservative is pretty much that, rather than the bible thumpers you get from the south. Eventually social issues that should be taken care of will be and ya it'd be nice to just get them over with now and stop listening to the but there's more important issues than gay marriage as much as it must suck if you are gay and want to get married.

[Symphony]

As a European I see it less as "Democrats good, Republicans bad" more that both sides have been hopelessly polarized into extremist factions whose only policy is to block the other sides policies to appease their radical core voter base. Said core base has conditioned itself to see the other side as evil and "ruining the American way of life". Thus sidelining moderates on both sides.

This pretty much nails it as succinctly as possible.

I just happen to find the Democrats less objectionable because they don't have the ties to Bible belt Ultra Conservatism and Amoral Megacorps the Republicans have.

The Democrats' ties to both simply aren't as well-remembered or as well-publicized as the Republicans' are. As an example, remember the PMRC, the music censorship organization? That was the direct result of Tipper Gore (The wife of Al Gore, the Democrat's Democrat) being concerned about demonic influence in American pop music. The Bible thumps loudly on both sides of the aisle (although I'll agree the Republicans tend to thump it more profitably), and both camps are awash in corporate dough.

but there's more important issues than gay marriage as much as it must suck if you are gay and want to get married.

This is an interesting statement. I disagree; I think it's the last legally acceptable prejudice left to us, and i think the time is finally ripe to do away with it; we need to make the change now, while there's momentum to finally get it done.

As an independent that's currently registered as a Republican (for this year, anyway....check me next year), I got very, very tired of seeing neither Democrats nor Republicans do much of anything about gay marriage....both parties were afraid to touch the issue for a very long time, and most of the positive action being taken today is happening at the hands of judges, not elected politicians of either party. Given their many, many years of inertia on the issue, it amuses me no end how the Democrats have suddenly rushed to make it "their" issue.

[Cyclops]

We have close to a binary split in Australian politics with the union-based Labor vs conservative Liberal/National (although the greens and independents are making a few waves), but less individual expression as candidates are pledge-bound to a party platform.

In the US congress individuals seem to have way more leeway on "conscience" issues, so quite a lot of the time if their community tell them to do something they do it rather than obeying a party line. I guess that gives enough wiggle room that the two party system doesn't completely enslave the people.

The basic purpose of Government is to keep the peace: most US citizens accept the way things are, and the system of government allows enough choices (real or imaginary) to keep people happy. A US southerner once said "'Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason"-change can be good just in and of itself.

Its also so different groups have their say in running the country so there's not a civil war. The republicans give an alternative to the democrats so you don't have to express your disappointment in the rulers by planting bombs.

The problem with entrenched parties is you only need 51% of the vote (or however you cook your voting system): once you have a pledge bound party you only need 51% of the leaders of the 51%: if you have strongly developed factions within the party you can get by with 51% of the 51% of the leaders of the 51%. That's where Australia has gotten too unfortunately, both major parties oppose gay marriage for example because small decisive Christian factions (right wing Catholic unions in Labor, highly organised Pentecostals and sect-like groups in the Conservative right wing) hold a balance of power in one state which affects the balance of the federal party.

I wouldn't characterise one side or the other in US politics as "evil". I think the Republicans have gotten some bad press (and the Democrats some good press-why the worship that dufus Kennedy? Its seriously Elvis levels of delusion) but Fox is redressing that with some epic propaganda efforts.

Maybe the Republicans have suffered from narrow factional control? Three Bush terms in five looks like not enough factions being represented to me, and if Jeb gets a run that's a very bad sign. It would be justs as bad, if not worse, for US politics for another one or two Clinton terms. One good thing about Obama's admin is it was a lot of new people: you get blunders with that, but not worse than the experienced team Cheney had.

[Symphony]

In the US congress individuals seem to have way more leeway on "conscience" issues, so quite a lot of the time if their community tell them to do something they do it rather than obeying a party line. I guess that gives enough wiggle room that the two party system doesn't completely enslave the people.

This used to be the case, but it hasn't been for the last decade or so. My opinion is that the Obama administration's particular flavor of divisive politics has made it worse ("oh, you don't immediately agree with me? YOU'RE AN OBSTRUCTIONIST! YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO AGREE!"), but I'd be less than honest if I didn't see the seeds of the current hyper partisan environment sown during the waning years of the Bush administration.

Maybe the Republicans have suffered from narrow factional control? Three Bush terms in five looks like not enough factions being represented to me, and if Jeb gets a run that's a very bad sign. It would be justs as bad, if not worse, for US politics for another one or two Clinton terms. One good thing about Obama's admin is it was a lot of new people: you get blunders with that, but not worse than the experienced team Cheney had.

The Republican's major issue is a charisma issue. No matter what you think of their politics, Clinton and Obama are both extremely charismatic people, and the Republicans have struggled to find somebody who can match it. The Endless Cycle Of Bush is less a symptom of faction control, and more a symptom of that lack of charisma....if you can't put forward a charismatic candidate, you can at least put forth a known name.

[War lord]

Considering the terminally uncharismatic people the Republicans keep putting forward one does wonder if they actually have anyone who's charismatic, competant and doesn't have a bunch of campaign ruining scandals in their history waiting to be uncovered.

[Symphony]

Considering the terminally uncharismatic people the Republicans keep putting forward one does wonder if they actually have anyone who's charismatic, competant and doesn't have a bunch of campaign ruining scandals in their history waiting to be uncovered.

That presupposes that we have any idea what constitutes a campaign-ruining scandal (as opposed to just a regular scandal) anymore. I think if you asked any 10 Americans what that definition is, you'd get 15-20 different answers, depending on (among other things) who's asking the question.

We've long-since proven we don't care much about competence either way.

[Ulyaoth]

This is an interesting statement. I disagree; I think it's the last legally acceptable prejudice left to us, and i think the time is finally ripe to do away with it; we need to make the change now, while there's momentum to finally get it done.

As an independent that's currently registered as a Republican (for this year, anyway....check me next year), I got very, very tired of seeing neither Democrats nor Republicans do much of anything about gay marriage....both parties were afraid to touch the issue for a very long time, and most of the positive action being taken today is happening at the hands of judges, not elected politicians of either party. Given their many, many years of inertia on the issue, it amuses me no end how the Democrats have suddenly rushed to make it "their" issue.

My state has it, and more the point, it doesn't affect me and it won't in the future(well i suppose if I happen to have a kid or something who down the line turns out gay and wants to get married maybe I'd care but by that point I'm certain it'll be legal), whereas other issues are basically directly affecting my quality of life now and likely well into the future. Call me selfish but I'm more important to me than civil rights that don't affect me.

[Symphony]

My state has it, and more the point, it doesn't affect me and it won't in the future(well i suppose if I happen to have a kid or something who down the line turns out gay and wants to get married maybe I'd care but by that point I'm certain it'll be legal), whereas other issues are basically directly affecting my quality of life now and likely well into the future. Call me selfish but I'm more important to me than civil rights that don't affect me.

No, that's fair.

If anything, I wasn't sufficiently clear: I personally think it's an important issue, and important now, but I also can't fault anybody who feels that it'll largely take care of itself, so might as well vote on the basis of things that won't take care of themselves. Especially given that both parties ignored it for as long as they did, and are only now suddenly rushing to make it a platform plank now that its gained momentum (most of the heavy lifting toward achieving marriage equality occurred long before the Democrats decided they'd pick it up as an easy-win issue....giving the Democratic party credit for marriage equality is like giving your weatherman credit for a sunny day).