Democrat or Republican - does it matter?

Ok I am a Brit living in Munich and its nearly 2am, just finishing watching some garbage on TV about how the Bush time is over and he cant basically go to the loo without asking permission any more.

As a Brit I really have no idea what the difference is between a Republican and a Democrat, I have problems even now with what UK parties are really all about!

If I lived in California I would have voted for Arnie (republican), why because he bought me a bottle of wine on a beach in Cannes 20+ plus years ago and brought 30 girls from the crazy horse in Paris with him (all nude), he also seems to have done a load of stuff for anti global warming doing what Al Gore has been asking for (Democrat) so a Democrat running as a republican ?

Will this election really change things here?
Will Angela move the German stance because of it?
Will Tony Blair change and if he does why?
How do we sort out the mistakes made?
Who sorts them out?

odd idea but what happens if Hillary Clinton stands for next election (with Al Gore as VP) or as (Bill as VP)

As far as I understand it, the Democrats are right-wing and the Republicans are very right-wing. It seems that anyone less right-wing than Colin Powell is called a "Communist".


A moot point because he's even more of a lame duck leader than Bush. Even by his own admission, he'll be gone within 6 months.

I liked Colin Powell but thought he got sold down the river, I have never understood why they dont actually give professional soldiers the real job of defence, or when they do the fire them because they dont like what they say

Q for the legal eagles...Could actually Hillary Clinton run for pres with Bill as running mate?

Thats actually been the fun topic of many a party these past months scogs. Its politically not likely but constitutionally speaking? Well depends on whose doing the reading. Related articles below:

A recent article from the Washington Post shows the muddy waters: VP Bill? Depends on Meaning of 'Elected'

An old article from Slate says he can:Vice President Bill Clinton? Take 3

As for Clinton, he's made it no secret he'd like the constitution amended to allow (him) more than 2 terms at the presidency.

HTH,
jml

Indeed and when Brown takes over there will be no need to suck up to a lameduck Republican presidency and Brown can deal more openly with his Dem friends in Congress. This would neatly take the schizophrenicf kink out of UK politics and draw a line under the Bush/Blair relationship hopefully for all time.

to answer your title, Yes and No.

We might not be able to vote, but in the US the Dem and Reb are so opposite, so when one gov gets elected it can totally change its dealings with the International World.
Being a Canadian, a seeing most of my life how certain parties delt with their (the US) largest neighbours (Mexico and Canada), you start to see a pattern depending on the gov in power.
In Canada, I am a Tory, which is suppose to be the same as a Reb in the US, but the way the Reb deal with their neighbours I could never be a Reb. I started following Canadian Elections when I was a kid (6th grade we did a project that got me interested in politics), so I have seen patterns, then studying Canadian History at Uni (yes we have history even though we are only 139 years old).
Over the years its been intersting to see what Canadian Parties work well with certain US parties.

I will be honest the relations with the US and CAN have suffered the most under Bush, we now have a Tory gov in Can and they are not running to repair the failing relations. I am not Liberal, but I do give them Credit for standing up to Bush and his gov on many issues. And I am happy to see the new Tory gov doing the same.

How did he bring 20 nude girls to Cannes beach? Its not naturiste. But more power to him.

I believe his wife is working on him green wise, but one of his election platforms was repealing a gasoline, or big vehicle tax or something. That is a decidedly ungreen act

oh and the combination of a Democratic Congress, a weakened presidency and the departure of Rumsfeld means that it is extremely unlikely that the US will seek a military solution to the Iran standoff. And that is surely a good thing for the whole world.

I shouldn't think so because if the President becomes incapacitated the Vice-President immediately takes over. If the President cannot return to office the Vice-President is sworn in, but Bill has done his two terms and cannot serve again as President. No time to google it right now, though.
EDIT: Found time after all, boss is in a meeting
The answer is yo.
He cannot be elected to serve more than two terms as President, but nothing can stop him from serving another term or so when appointed.
See Wiki.

This could be a fun election then...

Sarabyrd, I had never thought of it in those terms. Quite an interesting scenario. I for one wouldn't mind seeing a bit more of Bill back in the White House.

ahh the return of BJs and cigars...at least they are not likely to invade <insert random country name here>

I think is fairly obvious that Hillary is planning on being the first woman pres, is the states ready to vote for a woman?

you need to be an intern and wear a short little black cocktail dress

Even the Democrats will rather go for the black man than the white woman.

I already have...twice

I personally am not a huge Hillary fan. I feel she is the consummate politician that tries to be all things to all people, and that drives me mad. I rarely feel her to be in the least bit genuine nor a particularly able free-thinker.

She really would have a hard time winning I think. Exactly who is her base? One won't see Repubs crossing over for her. She doesn't score high with women (as I recall), and the Dems are generally sounding luke warm to her.

Best opener to a political thread yet, Scogs. "I don't know; I have questions; what happens if?" - instead of the usual "I'm offended and if I ran the world, here's how it would be". Well done, seriously.

Re: the difference between parties; the usual joke goes that Republicans are pro-business, and the Democrats just say they are pro-labor, but in practice are also pro-business.

In simplistic terms, it's easier to group the parties together, and then divide amongst the libertarians, moderates, and conservatives.

thanks randy, actually baring in mind the time of the post and the amount of brandy i was drinking I am amazed that the post actually made sense

"I already have...twice" ? given bill a BJ?

He wouldn't have gotten away with it

NO, NO, NO...been a Senate intern...and sometimes even in a little black dress. Though I have met Bill, and I love his mind, he does nothing for me sexually. BJ's would not have been forthcoming from me.

Back to the original question, I think if you asked the average American on the street today if there is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans, you would get a resounding yes.

The biggest gulf that separates them is social issues, like abortion, immigration, the death penalty, gay marriage. The politicians like it that way. The emergence of the internet and 24-hour TV news channels has given the press a greater role in politics in the past few years, and they know their hits and viewer ratings go up the more controversial the issues are.

It isn't always so. Back in the early days of the Clinton era, people used to complain that there was no difference between the parties and some third-party candidates got traction from voters' frustration that what they wanted wasn't happening because neither of the big parties was interested in whatever it was. Now, it's almost a knee-jerk reaction: what the Dems are for, the Repubs are automatically against, and vice versa.

As for the international view on things, I think just the fact that the Americans have finally (in their view) woken up and done something about their horrible government should be reassuring.

I think this is part of a major problem with US politics, all of those topics are very minor and only the hard core lobbyists actually care about any of those things. The main things I tend to actually vote for would be health, education, jobs etc but these very really get the attention that they deserve while for example abortion laws are high on the activist list of whats important,
Abortion is really only important if you are about to become a young unmarried mum, or pregnant as the result of being rapped, basically its only important to the person who is considering it.
immigration is a bit of a joke for the states as virtually every one in the states is from immigrant stock, The death Penalty only important if you are sitting on death row, gay marriage, only important if you are gay and want to get married

here saith the man that normally votes for the monster raving looney party in the UK

You hit the nail on the head without even mentioning the main issue: Up to now there was not much difference in the parties' foreign policy. But with Iraq War II quagmiring even deeper than ever and turning into a ) Civil War and b ) a second Viet Nam (as predicted two years ago right there in my livingroom) the voters want the boys - and girls this time - back just like in the early 70's and the Democrats seem to offer better suggestions on how to do it.

Just a quick comment about the law he repealed: The former governor (who was ousted) had basically tripled the car registration tax- which is paid yearly. Nothing green or ungreen about it.

I would beg to differ with you. Just because those are minor issues to you, they are important issues to many. Immigration for example is a big deal if you live in any of the border states. The other issues are just as important if you have strong feelings about their impact on society. I on the other hand, feel that healthcare is only an important issue if you don't have it. And having experienced the debacle called the NHS, national health in the US is not high on my list of priorities.

thought her dress was blue?

it had white spots on in at least

glad we all now know who wears the lbd and who misuses cigars in your household!