• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Democrats more corrupt than Republicans?

Are Democrats more corrupt than Republicans?

  • Im a right leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 8 20.5%
  • Im a left leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Im not American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Im a right leaning American, no.

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Im a left leaning American, no.

    Votes: 8 20.5%
  • Im not American, no.

    Votes: 2 5.1%
  • Im a right leaning American, they are exactly the same as Republicans.

    Votes: 8 20.5%
  • Im a left leaning American, they are exactly the same as Republicans.

    Votes: 9 23.1%
  • Im not American, they are exactly the same as Republicans.

    Votes: 3 7.7%

  • Total voters
    39
Every single liberal democracy in the West today is "leftist leaning" in an historical sense. They're also far more successful than the monarchic systems they superseded.

Except that the US was not a Liberal democracy up until FDR and didn't fully transition until Kennedy/Johnson.
 
I think both parties are tied for that award.

Of course. Anyone with a lick of sense or who is not wedded to their partisan hackery knows this.
 
Ah. Someone who is so black and white that he believes that only communism or socialism are left leaning. Well, since we've never actually seen a pure communist or socialist government (they all become authoritarian, a right wing ideology) your premise about their failure is correct, but about them being left leaning is not.

Actually, there are quite a few who are only left leaning and not fully socialist. Mexico, Panama, Philippines, etc, etc. Or lets see, how about Sierra Leone who has a 70% poverty rate and cannot even provide it's own doctors and specialist to treat a minor epidemic.
 
Corruption tends to happen in situations where one party/person has absolute power and chances of loosing it are slim. This is seen in most democratic countries. Take Spain, here local towns and counties have been full of corruption historically because it has been one family that has been in charge for generations... basically because there was no opposition. The flip side is places like my home country of Denmark, where corruption in the traditional meaning is damn hard to do, since there is always someone from another party who is willing to cut you down when you do something wrong. A good example happened about a decade ago, when a local mayor was suspended because the town had bought stationary from a company that was owned by his son or wife. After an investigation it was concluded that he had no influence on the purchase at all and in fact did not know about it.. then he was reinstated.

Hence as large parts, if not a majority of places are dominated by Republican politicians and they have gerrymandered their districts so that the chance of loosing the seat are slim to none... that means at the moment it is the Republicans that lead the "corruption index" hands down. But the corruption has become so everyday that most people dont realize that it is corruption. Signing bills to benefit an industry seems normal, until you realize that the bill was written by the biggest donor to the man signing the bill.. that is corruption and happens way too often. Texas and so called "tort reform" is the poster child for open corruption.

That does not mean the Democrats dont have their own corruption issues by any means, since they dominate certain areas now and historically.. /wave Chicago. Again their corruption is in the areas where they basically cant loose.

Even in Congress there is plenty of corruption, but no one talks much about it since both sides are doing it and this comes down to lack of transparency, accountability and "secure" seats coming from the states, where the locals have corrupted the political system to benefit themselves and their allies.
 
Except that the US was not a Liberal democracy up until FDR and didn't fully transition until Kennedy/Johnson.

Whether that's true or not is irrelevant to my reply to your earlier comment. You claimed: "[ . . .] Want to compare achievements, standards of living or technological advancements of leftist leaning countries to others? Oh, wait, there are no others left, the us has turned leftist and is failing." Today's liberal democracies have by far the highest standards of living and rates of innovation in the world, thus proving your point null.

I'll take you up on the tangential point because you're again wrong. The U.S was always a liberal democracy, whereby 'liberal democracy' is defined as it traditionally is. As far as I recall we've always had a model of representative government and our constitution has always guaranteed the protection of the individual, both of which are defining features of liberal democracies.
 
Ah. Someone who is so black and white that he believes that only communism or socialism are left leaning. Well, since we've never actually seen a pure communist or socialist government (they all become authoritarian, a right wing ideology) your premise about their failure is correct, but about them being left leaning is not.

How is authoritarianism "right wing"? Sounds like something a leftist ideologue would say.

Yes, all leftist are socialist to varying degrees. Republicans, or what some presume is the "right" are mostly, but not exclusively, corporatist aka corporate socialist which is just socialism but with corporations running things instead of individuals.
 
Actually, there are quite a few who are only left leaning and not fully socialist. Mexico, Panama, Philippines, etc, etc. Or lets see, how about Sierra Leone who has a 70% poverty rate and cannot even provide it's own doctors and specialist to treat a minor epidemic.

And I never said that ALL left leaning countries were successful. Some are, some aren't. Same with right leaning countries. Of course, this also depends on how one defines "left leaning" or "right leaning".
 
Except that the US was not a Liberal democracy up until FDR and didn't fully transition until Kennedy/Johnson.

Actually, in the classical sense of the word, the US was originally very liberal.
 
Whether that's true or not is irrelevant to my reply to your earlier comment. You claimed: "[ . . .] Want to compare achievements, standards of living or technological advancements of leftist leaning countries to others? Oh, wait, there are no others left, the us has turned leftist and is failing." Today's liberal democracies have by far the highest standards of living and rates of innovation in the world, thus proving your point null.

I'll take you up on the tangential point because you're again wrong. The U.S was always a liberal democracy, whereby 'liberal democracy' is defined as it traditionally is. As far as I recall we've always had a model of representative government and our constitution has always guaranteed the protection of the individual, both of which are defining features of liberal democracies.

Which would then lead to the conclusion that there are no Liberal Democracies any more in the world as, by your definition, they would have to care and work towards individual rights and liberties. Only Social Democracies are left.

Next time you want to use Liberal in a traditional since, please say so. Liberal today means socialist too dumb to know it or to ashamed to admit it.
 
How is authoritarianism "right wing"? Sounds like something a leftist ideologue would say.

Yes, all leftist are socialist to varying degrees. Republicans, or what some presume is the "right" are mostly, but not exclusively, corporatist aka corporate socialist which is just socialism but with corporations running things instead of individuals.

How is corporations running everything even remotely socialist?
 
How is authoritarianism "right wing"? Sounds like something a leftist ideologue would say.

Your comments sounds like something are right wing ideologue would say. Extreme leftwing ideology tends to be based on shared power. Look at both socialism and communism for reference. The opposite of this would be power in the hands of the few, which is what we see with extreme right wing ideology.

Yes, all leftist are socialist to varying degrees. Republicans, or what some presume is the "right" are mostly, but not exclusively, corporatist aka corporate socialist which is just socialism but with corporations running things instead of individuals.

No, not all left wing ideology is socialist to some degree. I would imagine that your definition of socialist is far too broad to be accurately applied.
 
Which would then lead to the conclusion that there are no Liberal Democracies any more in the world as, by your definition, they would have to care and work towards individual rights and liberties. Only Social Democracies are left.

The current model of governance that pervades through the West ensures the protection of the individual under their respective supreme laws, hence liberal democracies still exist. Social democracies are by definition liberal democracies.
 
I don`t think it matters too much about party affiliation, the very nature of congress, gerrymandering lobbyin,g and citizens united makes it so that both parties MUST engage in corrupt behaviour (which conveniently became legalized) to remain competitive.
 
Voter fraud, bribes, witness tampering, pleading the 5th, extortion, blackmail, targeting of individuals over political beliefs, infidelity...we all know the crimes.

THE QUESTION IS NOT IF BOTH SIDES COMMIT THESE CORRUPT ACTS, BUT WHO DOES IT MORE? ARE DEMS MORE CORRUPT?

charlierangel.jpg

esq-nixon-0113-Dp4ftV-xlg.jpg


I believe both sides are equally corrupt. Its that corruption is more easily noticeable when the other side is doing it.
 
**** no.

What's really corrupt is politics as it currently exists. The problem is that politicians are in charge of fixing the corruption, and even get elected on a platform of doing just that in some cases. But one politician isn't going to change much of anything, let alone the entire goddamn system.

Party lines are just an artificial construct to give us an "us vs. them" framework, because we LIKE that ****.
It gets most of the politicians re-elected, you see.

Partisan politics is designed to distract us from actual issues, and from where I'm sitting it has succeeded for at least the last 5 decades or so. Probably the last century.


Edit: *cough* :rantoff:
 
Not to say that there isn't plenty of corruption all around, but the Democratic party is based on ideology that is inherently corrupt. Democrats tend to favor taking wealth form those who have rightfully earned or produced it, to be used for the benefit of those who have not. They take the side of homosexuals, transsexuals, and other forms of immoral perverts, against that of decent, moral people. They tend to take the side of criminals, especially violent criminals, against that of law-abiding citizens. They tend to support the slaughter of innocent children, in the name of “choice”. In the conflict between good and evil, Democrats, much more often than Republicans, can be found unabashedly taking the side of evil.

And of course, since the Democratic platform is much heavier into exercising the power of government in opposition too the liberty of individuals, this greater use of government power brings, with it, greater corruption.
 
**** no.

What's really corrupt is politics as it currently exists. The problem is that politicians are in charge of fixing the corruption, and even get elected on a platform of doing just that in some cases. But one politician isn't going to change much of anything, let alone the entire goddamn system.

Party lines are just an artificial construct to give us an "us vs. them" framework, because we LIKE that ****.
It gets most of the politicians re-elected, you see.

Partisan politics is designed to distract us from actual issues, and from where I'm sitting it has succeeded for at least the last 5 decades or so. Probably the last century.


Edit: *cough* :rantoff:

Take a breath, but hope it was cathartic. Did you ever stop to consider that since we see this everywhere pretty much throughout all of history-that politics is simply a reflection of us? Maybe WE are the problem.
 
Not to say that there isn't plenty of corruption all around, but the Democratic party is based on ideology that is inherently corrupt. Democrats tend to favor taking wealth form those who have rightfully earned or produced it, to be used for the benefit of those who have not. They take the side of homosexuals, transsexuals, and other forms of immoral perverts, against that of decent, moral people. They tend to take the side of criminals, especially violent criminals, against that of law-abiding citizens. They tend to support the slaughter of innocent children, in the name of “choice”. In the conflict between good and evil, Democrats, much more often than Republicans, can be found unabashedly taking the side of evil.

And of course, since the Democratic platform is much heavier into exercising the power of government in opposition too the liberty of individuals, this greater use of government power brings, with it, greater corruption.
If you're going to call ideological positions corruption, then sure you can call the democrats corrupt.

Personally I disagree with some of the things you mention, but agree with others. So obviously we aren't going to agree on certain things...

IMO though, republicans are nearly if not equally as bad on the "growing government" issue.
 
Take a breath, but hope it was cathartic. Did you ever stop to consider that since we see this everywhere pretty much throughout all of history-that politics is simply a reflection of us? Maybe WE are the problem.
Actually, yes. I have considered that.

And accepted it as the most likely root cause.

Doesn't mean I can't bitch about it.

Just have no idea how to fight when it exists, or prevent it from starting if it doesn't.

Because it seems like we don't ALWAYS have corrupt government - just that most of it is, and the longer it stands, the larger it grows, the more corrupt it becomes.


Sometimes I wonder if we ought to schedule an internal war every century, just to keep things fresh.
 
Actually, yes. I have considered that.

And accepted it as the most likely root cause.

Doesn't mean I can't bitch about it.

Just have no idea how to fight when it exists, or prevent it from starting if it doesn't.

Because it seems like we don't ALWAYS have corrupt government - just that most of it is, and the longer it stands, the larger it grows, the more corrupt it becomes.


Sometimes I wonder if we ought to schedule an internal war every century, just to keep things fresh.

This is what brought me into libertarianism, though I am a conservative first and foremost. The maximum amount of individual freedom is the best solution. That and recognizing human nature-it is natural, after all.

Obama takes money from some to use politically against that same targeted group-and he does it for power and votes to continue the cycle. Its as old as man, but think of how insane that is.
 
Public opinion is different than facts. Some people prefer facts.

very few on DP, however.... as they just seem to get in the way of impressions and opinions
 
If you're going to call ideological positions corruption, then sure you can call the democrats corrupt.

When it is a position—even honestly stated and pursued—that is overtly evil, or which violates the Constitution, then yes, such a position is itself corrupt, as is any politician who takes such a position.
 
When it is a position—even honestly stated and pursued—that is overtly evil, or which violates the Constitution, then yes, such a position is itself corrupt, as is any politician who takes such a position.

:roll:

I have very little use for either party, but to brand either of them as "overtly evil" is the height of hysterics.
 
Back
Top Bottom