What’s the difference between a “Democrat” and a “Republican”?
Democrat vs Republican : The Difference lie in their policies and beliefs. Here are the differences.Social Issues - Republican tend to be more conservative. They tend to oppose gay marriages and LGBT rights. Whereas their counterparts are more progressive in their views. Next US president is being viewed as one who will oppose these things.Donald Trump: Opposes Nationwide Marriage Equality | Human Rights CampaignTaxation Policy - Democrats believe that tax cut benefit should be given to middle class and low income family whereas their opposite number are of the view that there should be tax cut for everyone. Its “Targeted Tax cut” vs “Broad Tax Cut”.Health Care - Democrats prefer oversight of health care system like passage of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to make it accessible to everyone whereas republican don’t want too much government regulationIdeology - Democrats are generally viewed as left-leaning and conservation whereas Republican are right-leaning and liberal.Fear - Republicans fear that the government has too much control over corporations. However, Democrats fear that corporations have too much control over our government.Gun Control - Republicans oppose gun control whereas Democrats Favour it.Party Symbol - Not an important point. But just to inform, Republican Party symbol is an Elephant whereas Democrats Party symbol is a Donkey.Republicans v. DemocratsDemocratic Party vs Republican PartyDifferences Between Democrats and Republicans
What does the Confederate flag represent to Southerners? Why do people display it?
What does the Confederate flag represent to me?It represents an archaic way of thinking, a time when people who had a different skin color than mine were property and treated like it.It represents hatred and bigotry born in Europe and carried across the pond to be bred in the Southern United States, where I was born and raised.It represents the continued support and petagogy of prejudice, perpetrating ideals which are taught only to separate people and excuse racist behavior and actions.It represents a period of time when the United States and its people were shattered, broken and violently separated over how other humans should be treated.It represents Americans who still don't understand that a simple symbol can still separate, discriminate and hurt. It represents a culture which supports division and discrimination. It represents a group of people who would rather argue about the historic significance of the flag instead of the history associated with it. It represents animosity. It represents death. It represents control. It represents whippings and beatings. It represents rape. It represents tears. It represents blood.It represents a race of people ripped from their homes, thrown into ships, separated from their families and treated worse than animals for generations because of their color. To me, the Confederate flag, in any form or name - Battle, Northern Virgina, Stainless Banner or Stars and Bars - represents the same values, beliefs and ideals as a swastika or ISIS flag.It represents the people who founded my country with beautiful, brave ideas and hope that did not include people who looked different than they did.It represents people who value tradition too much and argue against change. People who forget change is what my country was founded on, what gave women the right to vote and what made the beer they toast with legal. Currently, it represents everything having to do with nine senseless murders in a church by a person who just doesn't like people who look different than he does.
Give me the best facts on the American Civil War?
"GIVE ME" How rude is that? Hope you have more acceptable social skills in real life, because I would not GIVE YOU the time of day!
Can States abolish the Electoral College?
The electoral college can be effectively bypassed by the states agreeing to support the winner of the national popular vote. The electoral college would still exist, the Constitution wouldn’t change, but instead of voting (mostly) on a winner take all basis for whoever wins the state’s popular vote, the electors would vote for whoever wins the national popular vote.Once states with at least 270 electoral votes agree to this it would go into effect. It wouldn’t matter how the other electoral votes were cast.The Constitution doesn’t stipulate how the electors can be directed by the states to vote. It would likely be challenged in the courts but not on very compelling grounds. Maine and Nebraska follow a somewhat different approach now. States have been able to direct electors to vote in chosen ways.
Why does the USA Democratic system use electoral votes?
It seems cheap to me, in a land where "All men are created equal", my vote doesn't count on an individual level. Why is a vote in Illinois worth more than one from Idaho? Is my citizenship worth more than another citizens? That's not possible with the way our declaration of independence is written. Our founding fathers spent a long time figuring this out and we're not giving it the respect it desires. How can it be that a president can lose the popular vote and win the election? This is not a game!!! To win! Just like many Sunday football games, where people make a play and everybody congrats the winning team on a good set of downs. This doesn't just affect our own country's well being, this is LIFE OR DEATH for the world's population!! The US, being a "superpower", how come one man's vote doesn’t really matter anym
Can the basis of the second amendment, which is the fear of the rise of the government tyranny, be deemed exaggerated in the 21st century given that we have so many checks and balances in the system?
“Government tyranny” depends on your point of view more than anything else. For example, Trump’s decision to kidnap and lose 10,000 refugee children at the border is tyranny to me. To others, it’s “proper border control.” Ditto just about any other government actions: condemning a subdivision of homes in order to turn it over to a shopping center developer is legal, but tyrannical to the people evicted from lifelong residences without enough money to buy a new place. Declaring a “state of emergency” when none exists is tyranny.So, no, the possibility of genuine government tyranny in the form of civilian disarmament, declaration of nationwide curfew or martial laws except in the direst of circumstances, suspending habeas corpus, suspending freedom of the press—could trigger a revolution and change of government if enough citizens are angered by it.Checks and balances, ditto. When one party controls all three branches of government—Congress, Supreme Court, and the Presidency—without a vast majority of voters selecting all those leaders, checks and balances do not exist. President Obama was legally and Constitutionally entitled to appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in the final year of his presidency. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell publicly announced he would not allow that appointment to even get a subcommittee hearing, let alone go to the Senate floor for a vote that McConnell and Trump would have list, as Garland was considered by Democrats and Republicans to be a fair and moderate and brilliant jurist. But the chance he might not advance the GOP agenda in every ruling doomed him.THAT is tyranny by government. And if it happens too often, and in a huge amount, the people need the tools to get rid of the current government and install a new one. That is a real reason for the Second Amendment—that citizens own and operate weapons not for shooting squirrels and deer, but for enforcing the Constitution if and when the government refuses to do so.So, no, 2A is not the least bit outdated.