Anyone watching the debates?

[Kantor]

PDF said:

mrstickball said:

Not quite like you'd think.

Both parties can want nore government involvment socially, and economically. For example, Dems push hate speech legislation which is certainly a social issue. Likewise, Republicans can push for more government involvment via subsidies such as all Big Ag. Additionally, I mentioned things that the Republicans championed under Bush such as Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind which were big government intrusions into the economy and created larger government. So its not as different as you think. Both parties blame each other, but they are the side of the same coin. That is why government has grown so incredibly under Bush AND Obama. Look up the numbers... Both are horrible in regards to regulations and government invovlment.

A lot of what Bush did is not supported by current republicans.  No child left behind is much more a social issue imo than an economical one.  Even though it does affect both.  The government tends to grow under either party in time of crisis.  9/11 and economic recession, Cold War scares,  Depression, WW2, Civil War.   The way each party grows the government is often different.

I am not arguing that dems and reps are not close in an overall view.  

Communism --------- Socialism -----------(Dems - Reps) ---------------Statist ----------------Facist

But when only focused on our two party system they greatly differ on a number of issues.  I gave a general overview which in most issues are correct but that is not to say they dont flip flop strangely on some positions.  Even when they do flip for more or less government the other party does the same, once again making them more different.

What i argued against is the idea that Romney and Perry are not Republicans, while Paul is.  That is obsurd.    

I do not fault Paul for sticking to a much stronger idealogical stance while Republicans and Democrats flip ideals on some issues if it better suits them and their constiuents.

That scale is nonsense. You're mixing together two things into one. Socialism and Communism go hand in hand with statism and do not contradict fascism.

On the economic axis: Communism - Socialism - Centre (Democrat) - Capitalism (Republican) - Anarcho-Capitalism (Ron Paul)

On the social: Anarchism - Liberalism (Democrat, Ron Paul) - Centrism (Mitt Romney) - Authoritarianism (Republican) - Fascism

That said, you are absolutely right to say that everyone standing for the Republican nomination is a Republican. Moreover, none of them comes close to representing the Republican party under Abraham Lincoln 150 years ago, nor really the party of the 50s under Dwight Eisenhower. It has moved right on both axes. Ron Paul has remained one of only a few "libertarians" left in the party (the word is in inverted commas because he is by no reasonable definition a libertarian, just a slightly more socially liberal Republican).