No such thing as a wasted vote. Not voting is an option n statement also. Running for another party for only the reason to win proves a groundswell for another party is needed n will take time. If not stick with the problem bi-polar politics always brings.
And we all would have been turned into robots. He invented the Internet. Who knows what he would have created as a president?
I have voted for a third party candidate a few times. I feel it is wasted, but I won't vote for the best possible shiny turd just because of affiliation. Ron Paul would have been epic.
Which wars were unfunded? And also...the economy was going to crash anyway. It was at its precipice at the tail end of Clintons term. If you mean "unfounded" wars...don't go there. You are talking to a vet that fought overseas. Osama Bin Laden brought that war here. We were just relocating the battlefield because we can.
Which wars were unfunded? Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither one of them were funded. Both of them were fought on credit. Bush didn't increase taxes to pay for them. He cut taxes, remember? And no, the economy wasn't on a "precipice" at the tail end of Clinton's term. Bush inherited a mild recession after Clinton left office that began in March 2001 and ended in November 2001. That's hardly an economic crash. And Bush was in good shape to handle it. He also inherited a budget surplus with a projected $5.6 trillion dollars more in surpluses over the next 10 years. That's what he used to justify his tax cuts, remember? I'm also a vet, so I'll go here too. We didn't have to invade and occupy Afghanistan or Iraq. We had other military options. Bush wanted regime change. That required invasion. So here we are a decade down the road and a few trillion dollars poorer. Do you feel any safer? I don't.
I left KaW for a year and I came back to see a really good/interesting thread. I read the entire thing :lol:
Akura, while it is true that the U.S. oscillates back and forth between the two parties, understanding why, is important. In recent history, the pattern has been that when the country is in economic trouble, people vote for Democrats. But when the economic crisis is averted during the Democrat's term, the country focuses on wedge issues (religious, social, and real or imaginary scandals) and votes Republicans back into office. For example, after Presidents Reagan and (H.W.) Bush ran the economy into the ground, the country turned to President Clinton. When Clinton stabilized the economy, the country had time to have their attention focused on his personal life and other wedge issues. It was mostly on these wedge issues that brought the Republicans back into office. Then when President (W) Bush tanked the economy again, the country again turned to a Democrat. Now that President Obama has staved off a depression, and the country is in an economic recovery, people again have time for paranoid musings about whether the Democrats are going to take their guns and religion away, or invade the southwest of the country that is already owned by the U.S. And many of these arguments will be coming from extremists goaded on by the super-rich, who want to maintain and increase the influence they can obtain in the government, by perpetuating the unregulated influence of money on politics. Which, by the way, is exactly what the study points to. So just as I said, it is important for the public to be educated and reasonable, and to vote in a manner that reflects the need to regulate money in politics, especially if they are worried about the influence of money on political power.
The problem with te U.S. Government is one it's turning socialist/ which I guess also goes along with the fact that the states powers are getting far to weak and over ruled by the national government. I mainly blame the liberals as their policies are 100% socialist, plus watch an liberal news you will see the massive push of discrimination and racism, mostly with untrue or yet to be proved facts.
At black dragon u do also know that we r in a period of natural warming as well right? And that the peak of global warming was in the 70's and the impact is gradually decrease Thx to new methods and more people being responsible towards the environment
OMG Corruption has been proven to exist amongst the rich and powerful! STOP THE PRESS! Damn, people, stop living in your mums basement.
I mainly blame conservatives who can't define what socialism is. It's somewhat understandable because there are different kinds of socialism, so a single definition doesn't describe them all, but generally it's "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies". The problem most conservatives have is that they confuse regulating something with owning it and controlling it. Let's take Obamacare as an example. Under the ACA, the government mandated that everyone has to have health insurance. The government set up exchanges where private insurance companies could market policies to the public that they could use to get health care from private providers and and private hospitals. If you can't afford it, the government helps you pay for it. The government doesn't own the insurance companies or the hospitals. They only regulate them. Conservatives freaked out and called it a government "takeover" and socialized healthcare, even though the conservatives were the ones who originally came up with the idea. It's not either one. The reason why conservatives freak out over socialism dates back to the cold war, which by the way is when many of them started becoming extremely religious. That's a topic for another thread. The reason why conservatives are encouraged to freak out over socialism by their political leaders is because the Republican party doesn't like the government regulating things. It's bad for profits. Things like safely processing industrial wastes instead of dumping them into rivers, or inspecting food to make sure it doesn't kill people when they eat it costs money. If it costs a business money, it's bad. Drinking the polluted water or eating the contaminated food is your problem. Since the Democrats usually tend to think the marketplace needs to better regulated, not less regulated, Republicans call it socialism and their base reacts accordingly, like you have.
yeh bd but if the repubs didnt dump the peeps for big businesses the businesses wouldnt give them lots of money to elect them nd change laws to make them more money and if wedidnt have that whdte would we be except like not havin as much corruption and stuff and maybe havin a better gov that works for the peeps instead of against them and like a stronger overall long termy economy but who wants any of that (giggle)