It appears to me, that their corporate masters cannot lose either way.
Government of the corporations, by the corporations , for the corporations?
"Fascism in Italy combined elements of corporatism, totalitarianism, nationalism, militarism, and anti-Communism"
Source(s)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
2007-08-11 02:58:29 · 10 answers · asked by . 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They are both deluded.... but I think the Republican party has been more dependent on corporation contributions than the Democrats for the last 20 years. It is no coincidence that they have fared better in the electorate as a result.
But it looks like the tide is changing... corporate contributions have traditionally gone more to Republicans than Democrats (with companies like Wal-Mart and Exxon paying both parties in the same election to cover all possibilities... they just paid more to GOP candidates). Lately though, corporate doantions are starting to balance more evenly than they have in the past indicating that the voters are trending towards the middle... the corporations want the winner to be indebted to them so they will contribute more to the candidate that they think will win (that's why Rupert Murdoch has contributed heavily to Hillary Clinton's campaigns in the past and today even).
Unfortunately, I think the average voters that consider themselves to be a Republican or a Democrat (and will not absolutely vote for the other party) are the ones that are most deluded. They don't realize that corporate contributions and lobbyists have more of an impact than ideaology on a politician's legislation.
2007-08-11 03:14:37 · answer #1 · answered by cattledog 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For one concern, social matters. That distinction is obvious. Abortion, gay rights, the dying penalty. Economically the Republicans are bent on rewarding the wealthy for being wealthy, and the Democrats think of the wealthy have had adequate tax breaks. The Republicans desire to defund the NPR, whilst Democrats desire to maintain those public airwaves open and unmolested. there are a number of variations, those examples are only some.
2016-11-12 01:02:34 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both, you can't vote for someone based on poltical party... you need to vote on the issues.. The only ones who have been honest and clear about where they stand are Dennis K. -democrat, Ron Paul-repbulican.. Look at the top tier canidates.. Hil was on a mag saying why big buisness loves her.. who do you really think is going to benefit.. we need someone for the majority, not just the elite.. I say Ron Paul and Dennis K. for 2008!!
2007-08-11 03:18:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well the corporations run the world now. The big ones have more influence internationally. When any entity is that powerful and wealthy, the govt will listen and adjust policy to them more than to anyone else.
2007-08-11 03:14:37 · answer #4 · answered by Max Power 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are both deluded but not as much as the American public. We have to understand that there isn't 2 parties,there is just 1. The lying party.
2007-08-11 03:17:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
They are equally deluded. Neither party can do a damn thing about the price of oil or the cost of health care. National policy is driven by our need to earn a buck. We may be Americans, but we are in equal measure, capitalists.
2007-08-11 03:09:01 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Both are deluded. But I pray that Ron Paul will lead the Republican Party, and Kucinich will lead the Democrat Party, please God.
2007-08-11 08:03:04 · answer #7 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither, Just the "Fanatics"!
2007-08-11 03:06:28 · answer #8 · answered by Guessses, A.R.T. 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the dems are great. but they are better.
2007-08-11 03:58:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I didn't vote for Bush. No delusions there.
2007-08-11 03:04:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋