Are Republicans worse for America than Democrats?

[enhanced_deficit]

Somedays, the answer seems "yes".

Republicans blast Kerry’s 'anti-Israeli' Senate briefing against new Iran sanctions

Harsh rhetoric between Jerusalem and Washington continues, with the U.S. blasting Israel’s 'unreal' evaluations of Iran accord and Netanyahu warning that the 'bad deal' could lead to war.

Kerry speaks with reporters on Capitol Hill before testifying before a Senate panel. Photo by AFP
By Ari Shavit | Nov. 14, 2013 | 6:08 AM

Tensions heightened and rhetoric escalated between Washington and Jerusalem on Tuesday as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry gave what was described as a “fairly anti-Israeli” briefing on Capitol Hill while his State Department dismissed Israeli evaluations of the proposed nuclear deal with Iran as “inaccurate, exaggerated and not based in reality.”
Accompanied by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, top U.S. nuclear negotiator Wendy Sherman and other officials, Kerry tried to convince Senators to refrain from approving new sanctions against Iran, with saying that such a move would “destroy the ability to be able to get agreement.” Kerry told skeptical lawmakers that they needed to “calm down” and to give the negotiations a chance to succeed.
But Republican Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) said that Kerry’s briefing had been “disappointing” while his colleague Mark Kirk (R-IL) described it as “very unconvincing."
Speaking to reporters after the briefing before the Senate Banking Committee, Kirk described it as “fairly anti-Israeli” and seemed to put more trust in intelligence assessments apparently given to him by Israeli officials than in Kerry’s official presentation.

“I was supposed to disbelieve everything the Israelis had just told me, and I think the Israelis probably have a pretty good intelligence service,” Kirk said. He revealed that the Israelis had told him that the “total changes proposed set back the program by 24 days.”
According to the Buzzfeed news site, a Senate aide familiar with the meeting said that “every time anybody would say anything about ‘what would the Israelis say,’ they’d get cut off and Kerry would say, ‘You have to ignore what they’re telling you, stop listening to the Israelis on this.’”
“They had no details,” the aide said. “They had no ability to verify anything, to describe anything, to answer basic questions.”



Abu Zubaydah
Son of a Palestinian refugee, Abu Zubaydah moved to the West Bank as a teenager, where he joined in Palestinian demonstrations against the Israelis.

100,000 Palestinians have a score to settle with Israel
Nov. 13, 2013
The IDF is calling these incidents “atmosphere attacks” - acts inspired by the tense atmosphere in the West Bank.

Exclusive: Abu Zubaydah wanted to 'bring America to its knees' after 9/11
by Jason Leopold
November 12, 2013 11:00AM ET
The Guantanamo detainee's diary reveals complexity of Al-Qaeda'€™s milieu in months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks


Smoke billowing after attacks on the Twin Towers in New York on Sept. 11, 2001.Marty Lederhandler/AP

Zain Abidin Mohammed Husain Abu Zubaydah, one of the highest-value detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was building a network to wage a war that would "bring America to its knees" before he was captured in 2002, his personal diaries show. In the document, Abu Zubaydah recounts the chaotic aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the United States and the toppling of Afghanistan’s Taliban regime, which provided shelter for men like him and Osama bin Laden.
After describing how he helped fellow fighters flee from Afghanistan to Pakistan, Abu Zubaydah writes of forming a network of trainers capable of teaching skills like bomb making in a new organization with ambitious plans to attack Israel. He notes that he returned to Afghanistan with $50,000 "to participate in any jihadist operation against the Jews" that he intended to carry out in Iran or Pakistan.


Murderer of Bobby Kennedy, Sirhan Sirhan, to ...
Mar 2, 2011 - After all, Sirhan Sirhan said that he killed Bobby Kennedy because ... his presence would, immediately radicalize the Palestinian Christians.

[AuH20]

Yes, the Democrats have started every war in recent American history with the exception of the recent Bush debacles.

[WM_in_MO]

The question assumes there's a difference.

[FrankRep]

Listen up people.

Political parties are just a tool to get elected. We have told you this a million times.

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash are republicans.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Listen up people.

Political parties are just a tool to get elected. We have told you this a million times.

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash are republicans.

Agreed. If anyone is stuck in the "false left/right paradigm". It's the people who always complain about the false left/right paradigm.

[FrankRep]

Agreed. If anyone is stuck in the "false left/right paradigm". It's the people who always complain about the false left/right paradigm.

I get attacked all the time on this point. I have to calmly explain to the Libertarian about political parties being tools to get elected.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I get attacked all the time on this point. I have to calmly explain to the Libertarian about political parties being tools to get elected.

It destroys their worldview, so they refuse to accept it. It's only going to get worse as we get into 2014 and Ron, Rand, Amash & Massie start to endorse and campaign for "unpure" candidates. If you think the reaction to Cuccinelli was bad, just wait.

[thoughtomator]

for what it's worth, you can say this much: Every Democratic President has been worse than the Republican preceding him, and every Democratic Congress has been worse than the Republican Congress preceding it; but the reverse is true only some of the time.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[RJB]

It's a ratchet effect. When democrats are in power they chip away at one set of rights. When people get sick of it, they elect republicans who do not alter what the dems did, but rather attack another set of rights. People gets sick of repubs and elect dems. Dems allow what the repubs destroyed to stand and attack...

That's why things get progressively worse.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[belian78]

Listen up people.

Political parties are just a tool to get elected. We have told you this a million times.

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash are republicans.

If parties are just tools, then it doesn't matter what letter they have next to their name as long as they are good candidates. Vote for good candidates, not a winning party.

[Christian Liberty]

Listen up people.

Political parties are just a tool to get elected. We have told you this a million times.

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash are republicans.

Agreed. If anyone is stuck in the "false left/right paradigm". It's the people who always complain about the false left/right paradigm.

I seriously doubt that anyone who is condemning "the Republicans" here means those people.

Ultimately, it depends on the individual. But I'd take an Obama over a Lindsey Graham if I had to choose. I'd rather the guy who is openly liberal over the guy that is clearly liberal but deceiving some by pretending to be conservative.

That said, I'd never vote in an election between two big govt. candidates like that though. Third party, write in, or don't vote.

[acptulsa]

Coke/Pepsi

I guess the Republicans are Pepsi these days. Because there's a thing called Pepsi Throwback that isn't full of HFCS like Coke and regular Pepsi, and there's a thing called libertarian Republicans who aren't chock full of bankster,, MIC and Big Pharma bribes like Democrats and regular Republicans.

So, it's possible to drink a Pepsi that isn't bad for you, and if your local party has been busy, it's possible to vote for a Republican that isn't bad for the country. That's more than the Democrats or Coke can say...

[ZENemy]

which gang was better for LA and the U.S in general, the crips or the bloods?

[phill4paul]

Technically, there haven't been any recent "wars"; but I catch your drift. I suppose it all depends upon what you define "war" and "recent" to mean, and who really had the responsibility for starting them (POTUS, Congress - and if Congress then it's typically bi-partisan to some degree or other). I'm an old guy; so I'd go by this list of military operations

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

[belian78]

I guess the Republicans are Pepsi these days. Because there's a thing called Pepsi Throwback that isn't full of HFCS like Coke and regular Pepsi, and there's a thing called libertarian Republicans who aren't chock full of banister, MIC and Big Pharma bribes like Democrats and regular Republicans.

So, it's possible to drink a Pepsi that isn't bad for you, and if your local party has been busy, it's possible to vote for a Republican that isn't bad for the country. That's more than the Democrats or Coke can say...

A bit of a rose colored outlook there I feel. Take a look at what the GOP did to our own Glenn Bradley as a perfect example of how well reforming the GOP has been.

[jkr]

which gang was better for LA and the U.S in general, the crips or the bloods?

what ever ICE-T was...

[CaptLouAlbano]

If parties are just tools, then it doesn't matter what letter they have next to their name as long as they are good candidates. Vote for good candidates, not a winning party.

Define "good candidate" then. Is it simply about what a candidate believes in and puts on his/her website, or is it about what they believe in plus having what it takes to contend for a political office (i.e. notoriety, experience, fundraising, organization, etc). Personally, first I look at what they stand for but then I look beyond what they believe in to see if they also possess the other qualities needed to win elected office. If a candidate is not strong across the board, they will not get my support or my vote.

[CaptLouAlbano]

A bit of a rose colored outlook there I feel. Take a look at what the GOP did to our own Glenn Bradley as a perfect example of how well reforming the GOP has been.

Do you honestly think we can take over every county and state committee in just a couple of years?

[belian78]

Define "good candidate" then. Is it simply about what a candidate believes in and puts on his/her website, or is it about what they believe in plus having what it takes to contend for a political office (i.e. notoriety, experience, fundraising, organization, etc). Personally, first I look at what they stand for but then I look beyond what they believe in to see if they also possess the other qualities needed to win elected office. If a candidate is not strong across the board, they will not get my support or my vote.

Ah yes, they have to be a 'winner'. Did you support the schoolyard bully in school for a reprieve from the wedgies too?

[FrankRep]

If parties are just tools, then it doesn't matter what letter they have next to their name as long as they are good candidates. Vote for good candidates, not a winning party.

You missed the party about getting elected. Libertarians don't get elected.

[belian78]

Do you honestly think we can take over every county and state committee in just a couple of years?

Do you honestly think it's going to change anything by electing the same types of wishywashy spineless politicians, just because they talka big game and have lots of money/friends?

[belian78]

You missed the party about getting elected. Libertarians don't get elected.

I never said anything about Libertarians, you need help Frank.

[FrankRep]

Ah yes, they have to be a 'winner'. Did you support the schoolyard bully in school for a reprieve from the wedgies too?

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie were elected. Are they school bullies?

[CaptLouAlbano]

Ah yes, they have to be a 'winner'. Did you support the schoolyard bully in school for a reprieve from the wedgies too?

No because the bully would not measure up to my values or beliefs.

Running for political office is essentially asking the citizens to hire you for the job of representing them. While what they believe is of the utmost importance, if they have not done what it takes to win political office, why should I bother to support them? Why would I waste my time and money on a candidate who didn't bother doing what it takes to build name recognition, to gain experience, to have the ability to raise funds, etc. And furthermore why should I condone their lack of action with my vote?

[belian78]

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie were elected. Are they school bullies?

As I said, good people. Nice try at deflecting from my point though.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Do you honestly think it's going to change anything by electing the same types of wishywashy spineless politicians, just because they talka big game and have lots of money/friends?

Do you have reading comprehension problems? This is what I said:

"Personally, first I look at what they stand for but then I look beyond what they believe in to see if they also possess the other qualities needed to win elected office. If a candidate is not strong across the board, they will not get my support or my vote."

Where in that quote did I say anything about them being wishy washy? As I stated the first thing I do is see what they stand for. If I like what they stand for, then I will look further at their other qualifications and attributes. If I don't like what a candidate stands for, there's no reason for me to look at them further.

[belian78]

No because the bully would not measure up to my values or beliefs.

Running for political office is essentially asking the citizens to hire you for the job of representing them. While what they believe is of the utmost importance, if they have not done what it takes to win political office, why should I bother to support them? Why would I waste my time and money on a candidate who didn't bother doing what it takes to build name recognition, to gain experience, to have the ability to raise funds, etc. And furthermore why should I condone their lack of action with my vote?

You must love restrictions regulations and red tape huh? I mean, it takes a lot of action to wade through all that, right?

[belian78]

Do you have reading comprehension problems? This is what I said:

"Personally, first I look at what they stand for but then I look beyond what they believe in to see if they also possess the other qualities needed to win elected office. If a candidate is not strong across the board, they will not get my support or my vote."

Where in that quote did I say anything about them being wishy washy? As I stated the first thing I do is see what they stand for. If I like what they stand for, then I will look further at their other qualifications and attributes. If I don't like what a candidate stands for, there's no reason for me to look at them further.

But if that person fits the bill, but hasn't played your game sufficiently enough they dont get your support either. Sounds wishywashy to me.