5) Foreign Policy: To bomb Or Not To Bomb. That Is The Question. (5 of 5)
5) Foreign Policy: To bomb Or Not To Bomb. That Is The Question. (5 of 5)
In foreign policy, generally, the Democrats and Republican focus on different issues altogether. The Democrats aim for greater global cooperation and multi-national engagement. For this purpose, they support the grant of aid to the third-world countries. The Republicans want to spread democracy around the world and confront with the governments that support terrorists or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).
How to deal with rogue governments and non-state actors is the issue that is creating the most controversy these days. Should we invade Syria to stop ISIS? Should we bomb North Korea? What is to be done with Iran? The Republicans generally suggest much stricter measures against rogue governments and terrorist organizations whereas the Democrats advise restraint in foreign policy issues and prefer negotiation, peaceful means, and diplomacy.
Come on now! What kind of journalism is this? “The Republicans want none of that hogwash.” The author already shows his bias in favor of Republicans.
Republicans favor large corporations and unregulated capitalism for maximum corporate profit. Democrats support workers rights and resit the power of large corporations to control government and want regulated capitalism. Everyone has seen the results of corporate greed for profit. The promotion of cigarettes as being healthy, crooked banks too big to fail, non foods and poisons being put in our food supply, bribing of public officials. The list goes on and on. Republicans recognize the problem and want the market to regulate crooked corporations but that is only possible if independent auditors are allowed to publicly illuminate their crimes.so the market will know not to do business with crooked corps. Democrats want to pay for enforcement with tax dollars, republicans don’t because taxes get out of control. Most people like less government but not NO government. Congressmen make more than 95% of what the rest of America makes. For that kind of money I think taxpayers are paying congress to come up with solutions that are agreeable to everyone. Unfortunately, taxpayers are paying for congress that stone wall and do nothing but call each other names which any lazy idiot can do. This should not be tolerated.
There are no differences beteen the 2. For example, for health care, one party wants private insurance & the other wants universal govt insurance. Both are identically wrong as health care is what chew do to yourself, not what others do 2 U. The coverage thing is about sick care, when your healthcare plan breaks down or is overwhelmed, calling for emergency intervention. We don’t need a doctor in good health. We need emergency intervention (sick care) when we can’t handle it.
Plus, on Election Day, the names & faces change, but the day after, it’s bidness as usual with oil wars & cross-border drone assssinations. So get over the “difference” nonsense already!!!
Bug differences — one is the party of dead beats, criminals, liars and traitor – led by sociopath, egotistical psychopaths. The other are hard working Americans led by cowards.
It seems to me that the analysis of issues in which Republican views are linked to “Christian” value misses the point. First, there are significant differences within Christendom on these issues — one example being the attitude towards same-sex marriages and the ordination of gay clergy. The Episcopal Church of the USA, to which I belong, supports both; the Southern Baptists, neither. Perhaps a more meaningful distinction is between tolerance of difference and what psychologists call “punitive orthodoxy” — the view encapsulated so neatly in the bumper sticker “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” For of course it settles nothing, even among followers of Jesus, let alone Jews and Muslims (my cousin’s husband is from Egypt and while largely secular, identifies as Muslim, and his son has served faithfully and well in the armed forces,)
As for health care, to say that this is what the insurance companies are “for” is awfully naive. Even under a drive for universal health insurance, private insurers have been guilty of price-gouging; but even were every private company honest, the fact is that they are far less efficient than government single-payer plans. When I first moved to NJ to teach, I discovered that Blue Cross (as it then was) spent forty cents of every dollar of my premium on administration. As of that same date, administrative expenses for Medicare were just eight cents on the dollar. Even were it not a matter of fostering universal health coverage as a right of citizenship in a civilized nation, as in Europe or Canada, the cost difference alone should be compelling. The Democratic approach (yes, there’s an -ic on the end of the adjectival form, and don’t let any alt-right ignoramus tell you there isn’t) is pragmatic here — and these days, that is the rule rather than the exception (other examples of Democratic realism: global warming is real, fossil fuel resources are finite, and “one-man-one-vote” means what it says), For the time being, the Republican party has been largely hijacked by delusional thinkers; the Republican representatives we knew in our youth (as a retired teacher I’m talking midcentury here) are largely extinct, whether through being pulled ever more to the right by the practical demands of obstructionist congressional politics or by deciding that they make better Democrats (e.g. Senator Leahy of Vt.) Or they throw up their hands in disgust and leave politics altogether (Reps. DeWine and Boehner and Sen. Snowe, for example).
This further exacerbates the polarizing of America into two camps incapable of dialogue (Tm Kne’s comment is a perfect example of this; he believes that based on his description alone we shall correctly identify the parties he coyly alludes to.) Articles like this one help, but in the face of the alt-right propaganda machine and fake news from Macedonia, coupled with their near-total abdication of editorial oversight and fact checking, it seems a bit like spitting into the wind. Fortunately, reality has a way of making itself felt irrespective of what we think about it. The problem, as Poor Richard said, is that “Experience teaches a dear [sc., costly] school, but fools may learn in no other.”