What things change between democratic and republican governments

Forgive me as an outsider who's interested.
But from outside the U.S there doesn't appear to be that much change in America when Republican becomes Democrat government.
Yet I see huge emotion on here.
Please can you avoid clichés about attitude, honesty, woke etc and talk about real things that change.
Thanks Tigger

 

Not much really changes. “New boss…same as the old boss”.

 

Remember the movie "Trading Places"? That's essentially it.

Both sides pretend to hate each other and care about their constituents and then go party together and make door deals. The same people that actually "run the show" never change. They just provide the puppets to keep everybody worked up and fighting amongst ourselves.

I don't understand why anybody was still in his camp after he dropped the ball on COVID and compounded that with his part in the Capitol riot so the ones that hung in there should have exited when he maligned his own POTUS and country. If that's not anti-American, I don't know what they think is.

Personally, I don't get partisanship. We're all going to drown if the Captain sinks the boat.

 

You and me both. In my opinion, to be partisan is to be a sheep.

 

Which is probably why you do not understand that you are partisan.

 

Used to be we elected candidates on their merits, but now people have been persuaded "party good" and "opposition evil" Unfortunately many people have bought the pitch that power is more important than results.

To some people attacking others is more important than solving problems. If you look closely you may see evidence in the posts here.

 

Lets be honest. Via doublespeak, politicians lie. All the time. If we allow them, they will falsely pretend to be everything to everybody depending on to whom they are speaking.

The only truly accurate barometer of how a candidate will behave is in fact their party. You can try to predict how a candidate will behave by the "cut of his jib" all that you want. I will instead look at the position of their party to predict their behavior legislatively (which is all that really matters).

I bet you that my method will be far more accurate.

 

Those days are long gone. Both sides are completely partisan and are mostly interested in manipulating appealing to their base.

 

I think the answer that you seek is complex. A lot of it has to do with the President having both the House and the Senate while in office. If Obama was not in office with large majorities in the House and Senate, Obamacare most certainly would have never become law. Conversely, If Trump were not in office with narrow majorities in both chambers, the tax cuts of 2017 most certainly would not have been enacted.

If you have split government on the other hand, not much happens other than executive fiats which can still be pretty impactful.

Our system is fortunately designed to make change difficult.

 

Of course there are limits to their deception, but even within both sides actual party, these people try to play all sides. Dont forget that inter- party primaries are a huge part of this process.

During the Presidential primaries specifically, both sides campaign to the far reaches of their base to win the nomination. When the general election rolls around, both sides immediately jump to the center. This means they are lying in at least one part of that process. This happens to a lesser extent with Senators and Congresspeople as well.

To declare those days "long gone" is not accurate. They are very much alive and well.

 

How are the inter-party primaries trying to appeal to everyone? The primaries are party specific.

 

Thank you so far gentlemen/ ladies.
I don't see any definitive changes in policy described as yet.

 

You may want to re-read what I wrote, because this is one small aspect of what I pointed to.

Did you happen to see the post yesterday about the leftist that is opposed to post modernism/wokeism, but is an avowed liberal? This is a perfect example. In intra party campaigning, a candidate tries to be everything under the Democrat tent. If speaking with traditional working class/union Democrats, a candidate is going to downplay progressivism and wokeism, and present themselves as a populist. When speaking with progressives they eschew populism and become a progressive etc.. This is not that controversial of a concept.

In case you missed the remainder of my post which I may have added after first posting....

During the Presidential primaries specifically, both sides campaign to the far reaches of their base to win the nomination. When the general election rolls around, both sides immediately jump to the center. This means they are lying in at least one part of that process. This happens to a lesser extent with Senators and Congresspeople as well.

To declare those days "long gone" is not accurate. They are very much alive and well.

 

You dont think that Obamacare is a definitive change in policy? If that doesnt qualify in your mind, I suspect that nothing would.

 

It makes sense on a base level. People like to believe they "belong" (to whatever is important to them - team, church, political party, etc.) but it seems to get warped in some way relative to politics. It doesn't even make sense that one party is one way and the other one is the enemy. That's not how people engage with society. Somebody started a thread about just dividing the country up. That would be great if the ONLY commonalities/differences we have were political but they aren't.

I believe the biggest barrier to most people understanding this is we are conditioned to think of others in 1D (labels) or 2D (first impressions are the do or die moments) and ourselves in 3D. We know what we've experienced, believed, trusted, need and want but we don't know any of that about others unless they tell us so it's much simpler to put them in "neat and tidy" boxes. This is counterintuitive to effective interpersonal relationships and any kind of brainstorming toward positive change that people can get behind.

Somebody said that humans are the highest form of life but tI disagree at this point. The animal kingdom doesn't kill just because they don't like "them". They don't seek out and hunt for any purpose except to eat. Animals are not two-faced and back-stabbing. They accept others in their environments if they like them and reject any they don't want. Four-legged animals don't try to force their ideas onto others. They live and let live. Mothers can sometimes reject their babies but that's usually related to them being handled by adults (which the animal kingdom deems as an enemy unless they have a reason not to) but animals aren't drowning their kids in bathtubs and raping them and jerking around with the self-esteem.

So, when we are here connecting on whatever level with one another we aren't do the extra step required to have any "meeting of the minds". They just want to be angry and stay angry and attack one another. It's extremely non-productive and exhausting. I've never blocked anybody in all my years online but I've blocked about 70% of Trump apologists. I just can't endure their double-standards and helicopter parenting for someone that has made it no secret that he'll burn the Constitution down to get his way. This is about him being stealth. He doesn't do "quiet". This is about our country and anyone that will choose a *person* over their own government and Constitution needs to re-evaluate their patriotism.

I jumped back into politics because I'm a parent now but...I'm also mourning the loss of what I believed we, collectively, were as a nation. It's heart-breaking.

 

You originally said “everyone”. Everyone would be well…everyone. As in both sides. Hence my question about the primaries. And how do you know the leftist opposed to wokeism is trying to be everything. One can be liberal and not for wokeism. I know that might be hard for some partisans, who only see the world in black and white, to believe.

 

how about environmental positions

 

I was just thinking the same thing.... Why is it the sum of the most obviously partisan members deny that they are actually partisan?

 

More would change if not for Repub obstruction in the Senate. So don't be confused about the power a prez has to enact change with control of Congress. For example, Google the "For the People Act," which would have brought about sweeping change, vast improvements to the way elections are conducted and congressional maps are drawn. The list of other obstructions is long. Everything from gun control to addressing climate change. Try Googling "Biden reverses Trump policies" to see what can be done around the margins.

 

Best explanation so far.

 

Thank you.
So when a party leader (Dem/Rep) runs to be president does the party put forward a manifesto that they promise to carry out?
And more importantly with the permanently hung parliament you describe does anyone believe them?

If not I don't see what you are voting for.
Please pardon my genuine ignorance in this.

 

Sorry about this I missed your first post when I read this. Yes I think Obama care is significant but its quite a while back.
My view is tainted by how it works in the UK. We have two main parties each with very different values with the voters keeping them near the centre ground, but when either get elected we expect to see many changes in their 5 year term.

 

Some typically minor policy differences, usually over big ticket issues rather than the less popularised stuff that actually rules your life.

The most notable difference is that half the country starts hating golf, and half the country embraces it.

 

Surely all the vitriol between Rep and Dem can't be because of minor differences?

 

Perhaps minor was the wrong word - few in number I guess.