This was bugging me for a while.

We're now in a world where it's OK to be friends with people of a different race, religion, age, gender and (it's happening slowly)sexual orientation.  Years ago, you can't do much of that.  Yet, I haven't heard too much about people of different political parties being friends(with a few exceptions).

It may be just me, but I'd find it weird to be a friend of someone who'd voted for the wrong guy.  If my guy won, I'd feel like others would be sore at me.  If the other guy won, I would honestly find it hard to talk to anyone of that party without it being awkward.

"Hey, Ron, how's it going?  (be nice, Dan; just because he voted for the other guy and won, doesn't mean you can't still be friends)..."

This is just me though, so what are your opinions?

It's sad that this even gets raised as a question - friendship should always come way before political affiliation, even in such polarized times as these.

I'm not sure I know which way most of my friends would vote.  Hell, I don't even know how my husband voted last time (though I think I could make an accurate guess).  It is just not something that comes up in conversation.

(Actually I'm a floating voter so I can't even remember how I voted in the last election!)

I have several friends (and family actually) who vote differently than I do. Maybe I am guilty of trying to convience them to vote the way I do but if they don't, that doesn't mean that they are no longer my friend. It just means that I have to do much better on my methods of persuasion.  ;)  Serious, I judge people for WHO they are-not the way they vote.



Cat

It can be much harder than it used to be.  In these times of top-down class warfare, I find it hard not to resent those who vote Republican against their interests, and against my interests.  While the Right has been making bogus charges that the Dems have moved far to the Left, I find it is the Republicans who have become radicalized.  I find we are not dealing with the Republican party of Eisenhower, Nixon (that's right Nixon), Ford, McCain, Chuck Hagel, or Silvio O. Conte, our late lamented Congressman from W. Mass. 
The power of the Republican party comes from far right jacobins such as D-i-c-k Cheney, Tom De Lay,  and Mitch McConnell.
The Sean Hannitys of the proptaganda press love to bleat ceaselessly about the Democrats moving "far left" and go on about, "what happened to the party of Scoop Jackson and Zell Miller," I see the Democratic leadership as very, very moderate and overly accomodating to the demands of the Right. 
The reason Tom Daschle got his reputation as an obstructionist is because he stood up to the Republican party against their unreasonable demands.  John Kerry's reputation as most liberal is made by distorting certain aspects of his senate record.  The only Senate Democrats Republicans find suitable politicians are Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.  Both of him I find utterly despicable.
The right loves to bellyache about the angry African Americans in Congress, such as Charles Rangel and Maxine Waters, but these politicians (unfortunately) do not set the agenda for the Democratic party.
The so-called "Welfare Reform" bill Bill Clinton signed into law was legislation so radical and destructive Richard Nixon would have vetoed it at once.
The foundation of today's lack of civility is in the aggressive and savage tactics advocated by Newt Gingrich.  The genesis of the need for such aggressiveness is the desire on the part of Conservatives to continue the Reagan Reaction in which the American society is reversing all the social gains made between 1900-1965.
Can Democrats and Republicans get along?  Socially, it is always preferable to get along than not.  Politically, the Democrats need to launch a full-scale, unapologetic, no-holds barred war on the current Republican leadership.  It is the only way to save our democratic republic as we have come to know it in the past forty years.

Come on Maxwell, if you don't believe both parties haven't taking a sharp turn left (democrats) or right (republicans) you're insane.  People like McCain, Specter, Miller, Lieberman are stuck in the middle.  But it doesn't bother me because I want a far-right government.  Now Americans have to choose, between Socialism like what we saw with the Nazis, Saddam, and the Baath party and a far-right government like we saw with former President Reagan.

Proud to a Goldwater, Reagan, and Bush conservative.

No no no! You are so wrong! The Democrats are center-left, the Repubs are far-right now.

The Democratic party is NOT far left. *I* am far left.  ;)

Well, Max and El, you hit the nail right on the head. Since the GOP is so far to the right, anything even close to the center seems far left. The GOP makes the word "liberal" a dirty word. According to the Webster's dictionary on-line:

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
- lib·er·al·ly  /-b(&-)r&-lE/ adverb
- lib·er·al·ness noun
synonyms LIBERAL, GENEROUS, BOUNTIFUL, MUNIFICENT mean giving or given freely and unstintingly. LIBERAL suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given <a teacher liberal with her praise>. GENEROUS stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift <a generous offer of help>. BOUNTIFUL suggests lavish, unremitting giving or providing <children spoiled by bountiful presents>. MUNIFICENT suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or princes <a munificent foundation grant>. 



In my book the words "bountiful", "generous" and "broadminded" are good words. I am afraid that this is going to go on until people really understand the political spectrum-what it means to be far-right, far-left and in the center. But, some people are too busy trying to make dirty words out of a good one to really see the truth.



Cat

Come on Maxwell, if you don't believe both parties haven't taking a sharp turn left (democrats) or right (republicans) you're insane.  People like McCain, Specter, Miller, Lieberman are stuck in the middle.  But it doesn't bother me because I want a far-right government.  Now Americans have to choose, between Socialism like what we saw with the Nazis, Saddam, and the Baath party and a far-right government like we saw with former President Reagan.

Proud to a Goldwater, Reagan, and Bush conservative.

When I speak of socialism, I speak of democratic socialism, not fascism.  The Nazis, the Soviets, and the coercive Islamic states practice various forms of fascism.  These are not the kinds of governments I'm talking about.  If you want a far-right government, you are not going to find a state in which individuality and entrepeneurship is appreciated...or even allowed.

Dennis Kucinich was the only candidate I would have called far left.

The others I would call moderate to conservative democrats.  The problem we have is FOG (Fruitcake Occupied Government) and the right-wing press who call anyone to the left of Zell Miller a "socialist," a "communist," or a "wacko."  That's the reason you cannot see the demonstrable rightward shift of the Democratic party.  I mean, you really can't see it, and that's frightening!

No, Zell Miller is not in the political center.  He is an axe-handle wielding Dixiecrat with tertiary syphallis.  OK, I don't know about the last part, but something's making him act all funn like that!

When I speak of socialism, I speak of democratic socialism, not fascism.  The Nazis, the Soviets, and the coercive Islamic states practice various forms of fascism.  These are not the kinds of governments I'm talking about.  If you want a far-right government, you are not going to find a state in which individuality and entrepeneurship is appreciated...or even allowed.

Dennis Kucinich was the only candidate I would have called far left.

The others I would call moderate to conservative democrats.  The problem we have is FOG (Fruitcake Occupied Government) and the right-wing press who call anyone to the left of Zell Miller a "socialist," a "communist," or a "wacko."  That's the reason you cannot see the demonstrable rightward shift of the Democratic party.  I mean, you really can't see it, and that's frightening!

No, Zell Miller is not in the political center.  He is an axe-handle wielding Dixiecrat with tertiary syphallis.  OK, I don't know about the last part, but something's making him act all funn like that!


Maxwell be honest, do you favor a socialist government like Canada or Cuba?

i think cuba and canada are a bit different... and that we've gotten a bit off topic

I agree this had gone off topic.

Bringing it back for my post anyway ;) Yes, Repubs and Dems can be friends.  If either or both parties are as passioniate as most of the people here, just avoid too much political talk.  I have friends that are as anti-Bush as a bunch of you here...we just try not to discuss politics.

i think cuba and canada are a bit different...
He doesn't
::)

He doesn't
::)


Their are differences, different kinds of socialism, but they are still both socialist governments.

You didn't answer the question Maxwell, do you favor a socialist government?  And if so, which socialist government in the world now do you admire the most?

My friends at the bar tried to make nice with the idiots that were disturbing a Bush party, but thier was NO reasoning with them. We TRIED to remind them that THEY went un-disturbed by Bush supporters when they threw thier rally..but they didn't care. Oh well, High road for us and Low-brow for them.

Sorry to get back ON topic again, but yes, they can be friends. A certain person I know and love is a Republican and I still manage to live with him even though we disagree on certain things. :)

Sorry to get back ON topic again, but yes, they can be friends. A certain person I know and love is a Republican and I still manage to live with him even though we disagree on certain things. :)
Did I go off topic?

Did I go off topic?


No, you just posted like a second or two before me. :)

No, you just posted like a second or two before me. :)
Cool ;)

Their are differences, different kinds of socialism, but they are still both socialist governments.

You didn't answer the question Maxwell, do you favor a socialist government?  And if so, which socialist government in the world now do you admire the most?

The United States would not emulate directly any existing socialist government.  The U.S. is a unique country with unique problems.  I'm not interested in arguing the merits of the socialist government of Denmark, or France, or Germany.  We can learn lessons from the successes and failures of democratic socialist governments from around the world, but America cannot adopt any one of them as a blue print.
You know what would be totally revolutionary in America right now?  Capitalism.  What scares me is that our major parties have gone so far as to reject the capitalist system!  They love to throw around buzzwords like "small business," "entrepeneur," and "free market," but what we've got is a government that protects and subsidizes the giant corporations at the expense of the small businessman and the entrepeneur.  However, I digress.
I have one radical demand:  a living wage job for anyone willing to get up and work.  We have lost our blue collar economy.  Big business in cahoots with big government promotes the export of manufacturing and information sector jobs to foreign lands where workers have no rights and the ecology has no protection.  If we don't regain the blue collar economy, in which a person could buy a home and bring up a family possessing only a high school education, America as we knew it in the 20th century will cease to exist. 
The great "middle class," as I have said before, was a government-made construct.  It is disappearing because we handed the reins of economic control over to greedy business exectives.  Big mistake.
Perhaps a kind of socialism will helps us rebuild the middle class.  Perhaps a purer, truly free-market capitalism will do the job.  What I know is that the Republican party has no interest in either social democracy or the free market.  They are the party of the big business baron, the crony capitalist, and the military industrial complex.  The Democrats are not much better as they are beholden to the same interests, the Democrats have more political leaders waiting in the wings who may be able to lead us to a renewed blue collar economy.

Oh, by the way, the president of Viacom has endorsed George W. Bush for president.  Next time you watch the little degenerates cavorting on MTV and you are inclined to bellyache about the "liberal media," remember, the big boss man is for Bush.

Funny too how the right-wing media blowhards are blasting CBS for saying they were lied to, but they promoted the same excuse by the Bush Administration on WMD when the Administration said they "were given faulty intelligence."  Yup.  Dan Rather bad, George Bush good, Sean Hannity says it, I believe it, so that settles it!

Personally, I am finding it increasingly difficult to be friends with SOME Repubs. 

That said, I wonder what GWB thinks socialism is and what his vision for the US is.  My guess as to the first is that he hasn't the slightest idea (because he continues to equate facsism and socialism).  It is true that the Nazis were the "National Socialist Party", but that didn't  make them socialist.  He also mentioned Canada as "socialist", so I guess he is equating Canada with Nazi Germany.  Like his namesake in Washington, I think the man is dillusional.

I would like to think anyone can be friends with anybody. We are all human beings.  :)

Thread it you two!

Personally, I am finding it increasingly difficult to be friends with SOME Repubs. 

That said, I wonder what GWB thinks socialism is and what his vision for the US is.  My guess as to the first is that he hasn't the slightest idea (because he continues to equate facsism and socialism).  It is true that the Nazis were the "National Socialist Party", but that didn't  make them socialist.  He also mentioned Canada as "socialist", so I guess he is equating Canada with Nazi Germany.  Like his namesake in Washington, I think the man is dillusional.

It's going to be tough to talk to anyone who will put Canada and Cuba in the same breath.  In their world, government bad, business good.  Only the power to tax is the power to oppress. 

It's going to be tough to talk to anyone who will put Canada and Cuba in the same breath.  In their world, government bad, business good. 


Displaying, no doubt, total ignorance of both countries.

Let's not fight here, OK?  I just asked a question.

Yeah, I can be friends with one. Yet, I wouldn't have married my husband if he was a Republican. It would've been wrong for me to marry someone with a different political party view.

Tanya

I am a Democrat; however I do know a few people who vote republican; I just don't discuss politics with them. So yes, we can be friends.

I am a Democrat; however I do know a few people who vote republican; I just don't discuss politics with them. So yes, we can be friends.

I know some truly good-hearted people who consider themselves Republicans.  We agree to disagree and make peace with that.  However, even thought they consider themselves Republicans, they're not supporting the Bush administration.

I needed to take a week or so off from here, because I was getting to upset at some of the things being said.  But this is something I feel comfortable in responding to.


Personally, I am finding it increasingly difficult to be friends with SOME Repubs.  It is true that the Nazis were the "National Socialist Party", but that didn't  make them socialist.


I agree with you.  I personally do not look at things like politics when it comes to picking friends, mates, or anything else.  My ex was a Democrat (even though she was not eligable to vote), and that never got in our way.  My best friend is a gay Democrat who travels the Hollywood circut.  But we do not allow politics to get in the way.  We discuss topics, but do not let them get in the way of how we feel about each other.  Our discussions are always polite and respectful, even if they get a little heated sometimes.

My best friend here in Alabama is a Lesbian Democrat.  Her house has a Kerry sign in front of it, and the house I rent from her has my Bush sign in front.  We (and others) laugh at this, but we really do not care.

And yes, NAZI Germany was socialist.  But it was much more Nationalist then Socialist, with a lot of Racial Superiority thrown in.  Their major battles politically before they achieved Majority was the Communist Party, because they were largely after the same voting block.


Yeah, I can be friends with one. Yet, I wouldn't have married my husband if he was a Republican. It would've been wrong for me to marry someone with a different political party view.


I am sorry, but I find that very sad.  That you would place politics over love and a potential life mate is sad.  While I feel it is possible, and I would marry a Democrat, it is depressing that many Democrats do not feel the same way.  Makes me wonder about this "Inclusion" and "mutual respect" that so many seem to claim to have.


It's sad that this even gets raised as a question - friendship should always come way before political affiliation, even in such polarized times as these.


VERY well said!  Even when I discuss politics with people, I am always respectful to the views of others.  I would never call somebody stupid, ignorant, or anything else just because our views were different.  I guess it is that level of respect that is lacking in some people.


I have several friends (and family actually) who vote differently than I do. Maybe I am guilty of trying to convience them to vote the way I do but if they don't, that doesn't mean that they are no longer my friend. It just means that I have to do much better on my methods of persuasion.


Well, don't forget that "Political Conversion" is nor a lot farther then "Religious Conversion".  I know I would be offended if somebody tried to convert me from my religion, just as if they tried to convert me politically.  Not that I have any problems with discussions about either.  In fact, I love learning about the points of view of others.  But that does not mean I want to adopt those views as my own.

******

Overall, I think that people can be friends, no matter what their politics are.  This is my belief in reguards to any split.  Male-Female, Jew-Gentile, Black-White, Republican-Democrat.  Since to me none of those matter overall, I do not care about them.

The only time these can possibly become issues is when people are bigoted and will not accept the views of others.  These extreemists are the problem.  When people say "I could not have a friend that is a Liberal" or "I would never allow my daughter to marry a Republican", that is just plain evil.  Just replace the words "Democrat" or "Republican" with "Black", "Hispanic", "Jew", or "Homosexual".  To me, there is no difference.

Myself, I do not hate people for politics, no more then I hate them for anything unless they did something.  I can only think of 5 people in the world I hate.  1 is Osama, and another is Saddam.  This is for the crimes they have done against humanity.  Another is a former friend of mine, who on New Years Eve 1991-1992 beat a mutual friend to death because she would not give him money.  The last 2 are 2 Hispanic gangbangers who shot a former Boss of mine, and killed his wife of 30+ years.  This was a strong woman who survived the Holocost, yet died in the back of the store she owned because she would not give them the money fast enough.

Those are the people I hate.  They have done things to deserve that hate.  I do not hate anybody else.  Heck, I even love Don Carlos {big hug Don}.  ::)  :o  ;D  :D

I am sorry, but I find that very sad.  That you would place politics over love and a potential life mate is sad.  While I feel it is possible, and I would marry a Democrat, it is depressing that many Democrats do not feel the same way.  Makes me wonder about this "Inclusion" and "mutual respect" that so many seem to claim to have.


I do understand this because strong relationships are based on mutual compatibilitly and basic beliefs. I don't think it has anything to do with party affiliate. For instance, say there is someone who is dead set against guns for any reason. Would that person have things in common with a member of the NRA? Maybe they would. But I am sure that is what Tanya meant because Dems and Reps usually have different ideals. But, if you have a strong enough relationship, it could work.



Well, don't forget that "Political Conversion" is nor a lot farther then "Religious Conversion".  I know I would be offended if somebody tried to convert me from my religion, just as if they tried to convert me politically.  Not that I have any problems with discussions about either.  In fact, I love learning about the points of view of others.  But that does not mean I want to adopt those views as my own.




I think you misunderstood. Why do we have political debates? It usually starts off by people saying, "I think this" or "I think that". But it goes farther. "I think this because...." and discussion evolves. Look at any one of the threads on this board. It happens all the time.  I think we try to make people see why we think the way we do by presenting facts and ideas. Do we try to "convert" people? In a sense yes, I think we do. But I wouldn't use the word "convert" as I would "persuade". I think you do the same thing in these debates.

In terms of religious beliefs, there is really no right or wrong and to each his/her own (as long as it doesn't hurt anybody). But with political ideas, I do think there are right and wrong in terms of how things are handled-which CAN hurt people. But, what I think is wrong is not necessarly what you think is wrong. That is where the "persuasion" comes into play.



Cat