Hey everyone! I'm new to the site and was hoping I could get some help with a Research Essay I have to do for my English class at college. The argument of the essay is "Why is the country so politically divided?" As some of you might now, that argument is just an assumption, which, in order for the essay to work, needs to be proven. That's why I've set up a poll to see political affiliation. If you want to post a response, give a reason (or reasons) why you fall into a certain political affiliation. Thanks for the help!
Progressive Socialist. I like progressive parties like the old one in 1912, and the Taiwan Kuomintang. I vote democrat though, even though much of the san-min doctrine is not applied.
for the ones that voted democrat or republican,tyou are part of the problem and why the world is in the mess because both parties are corrupt here to serve the bankers and not the people.there is no difference between the two parties.nothinbg will ever change till we get an independent in office.one that serves the people like he is suppose to instead of the bankers.
Here is the real deal on this, and EVERY thinking AMERICAN should understand this, the Donkey & Elephant fiasco is totally WRONG! A! if you are not outraged, you are not paying attention! the alleged to opposing parties are not-so-secretly in bed together and they do NOT serve the interests of the taxpayers & Voters of this land, therefore, when you go to cast your ballot, Vote for the NOT a Democrat & NOT a Republican.
Moderate with Collective Anarchist leanings. As for party, well since the GOP and the Dems are so willing to keep my party candidates off the ballots, it doesn't really matter.
Why create sides and division in the process. I have my views and I would vote for a politician who shares my view. It doesn't matter what party he's affiliated with. - - - Updated - - - He lied about his his credentials - - - Updated - - - I think if trump took time and read all the media outlets and became familiar with global events, he will be a good candidate. He's real.
I'm a raving left looney liberal but only because the right has decided not to leave any cards on the table - for anybody. They've picked the gristle off every bone and are back for more. And they've left us with homilies and platitudes.
Could you explain how you can be both a moderate and an anarchist? Not attacking you, I'm genuinely curious.
Republican, but that is a pretty broad description, Unfortunately there is no party that speaks to all my interests and positions.
I was had no party affiliation for years and years and years Feeling that no party had all the answers And that there was much merit to responsible government spending And budgets Starting about the time of newt Gingrich and to delay... I became increasingly uncomfortable with the republican Party line. And eventually found it to be so nauseating that i registered as a democrat....despite seeing the many shortcomings of that party and general knee jerk liberal positions. But i personally just cannot stomach the republican party line, so i accept the lesser evil.... Imo a much lesser evil
I belong to the Reform Party. I firmly believe that the propaganda advanced by the two major parties of voting for the lesser of two evils or the least worst candidate that voting for a third party or independent is a wasted vote because they can't win is horse puckey. Voting for either a Republican or Democratic candidate is the real wasted vote. You are just electing a bad president or whatever office that you are voting for.
Never the less There is more bad I hated to listen to al gore Otoh i am sure that he would not have invaded iraq And that we would not now have isis to deal with
I agree that Gore probably would not have invaded Iraq. But ISIS had its beginnings back in 1999 as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, so in all likelihood it would still be with us today. ISIS like AQ really wasn't given much thought back then. The world was a totally different place. 9-11 changed so much. How Gore would have handled that is unknown and sometimes even a educated guess can be completely wrong.
Yeah but a seed needs receptive soil etc to flourish And the destabelization of iraq nurtured isis And while we cannot know what gore would have done, we do not have to guess about bush And while i do not agree with all obama has done I am glad we did not elect the guy who sang ,...bomb, bomb, bomb iran..... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
As a senator one does not have the weight of the world upon your shoulders. A senator such as McCain is just one of 100. The one who makes the decisions that that effects the world and the security of this nation is the president. What one says he would do or not do as a senator without an once of weight on his shoulder is in a lot of cases not what he does or doesn't when that weight is bearing down on him. This isn't an excuse for McCain, but it is a fact. It was said close to the same thing about Reagan, that dang cowboy etc. etc. Yet outside of Grenada his 8 years was rather peaceful. Sure you had the contras and some other stuff, but no large scale wars. Clinton's Bosnia adventure was larger, Kosovo and he too had smaller stuff such as Somalia and other places. Now the Bush's, they believed in big things, Panama and Desert Storm for daddy, Iraq and Afghanistan for son. You may be right about ISIS needing fertile soil. But without 9-11 it probably wouldn't be much today either. Most events in history are interrelated. There is always some event or events that preceded another event that caused the later to happen. One can put as much emphasis on 9-11 as the Iraq war. Actually a lot of this can be traced back to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and our stationing of troops on Saudi Arabian soil. That is where AQ got its big start, being peeved at infidels station on what they perceived holy ground. I suppose one could go all the way back to the end of WWI and the west drawing national boundary lines for the middle east, carving up the old Ottoman Empire. The west drew those lines without regard to tribal affiliation or religious sects. They drew them to make sure British and French interest in that area was taken care of. One can speculate what McCain would have done. I suppose one can only go by what he has said as there really is no other way to figure it out. But what one says as a senator and what one does as president is often two different things. It all who has that weight upon his shoulders. That weight is what influences decisions.
Couldnt all of your uncertainty be applied to the reform party also? Over all, with a few exceptions Republican candidates seem to rattle the most sabers To tell the truth, even clinton is too hawkish for me At the end of the day, we have to choose based upon the information that we have And for me Someone less hawkish who will not nominate another scalia or thomas is the clear lesser of evils
Yeah, the same could be said of Perot. One has to keep in mind Bill Clinton was a conservative southern Democrat. He started the DLC, a Democratic conservative organization and he governed more as a centrist than a liberal. Remember Welfare Reform and bringing the national debt down. I suppose one would classify Bill Clinton as a blue dog Democrat today. A very rare species in today's Democratic Party. Today, Jim Webb who dropped out of his presidential run would be the closes to Bill. Another thing if you watched. All those dovish Democrats in congress who were against Bush Sr. in Panama and Desert Storm became war Hawks with Bill over Bosnia and Kosovo. Of course the Republicans changed stripes too. the War Hawk under Bush Sr., a lot became doves under Clinton. I shouldn't say all, it is a lot. The same thing for Republicans who supported Bush Jr. in Afghanistan and Iraq, they went dovish over Libya and vice versa for the Democrats. Same thing on the debt ceiling votes, when Bush Jr. was president almost all Democrats voted not to raise it and almost all Republicans voted raise it. Switch presidents, you have just the opposite under Obama, Democrats in congress all for raising the debt ceiling and Republicans against it. Makes me wonder if any of them have any core values or is it just which party has the White House.
I really like the intellectual atmosphere of that era. Art, science, philosophy most of it new and exciting, and it was all there. There were cool street side cafe's, hidden away dark smoke filled speak easiest. One could of met any number of famous artists and intellectuals. Free thinkers roaming about the gas lit streets of Europe. Groups like the group and its members called the Vienna Circle (German: Wiener Kreis) of Logical Empiricism was a group that discussed the demise of Metaphysics via logical empiricism and science by observation and its new methodology. They didn't count on the tenacity of one of its members and a supporter of metaphysics, the brilliant Theist and logistic expert Kurt Godel! I love as in brotherly love that diminutive sickly man and his still unmatched intellect . Sadly, in 1936 a former student put an end to the Vienna Circle of Austria. Gone but not forgotten......you da logician kurt' A favorite movie he owned was Mickey Mouse He had OCD Godel was Einsteins walking partner at Princeton RIP Mr Godel ~
oh please,the president is just a puppet,a figurehead for the american people to blame.Things wont get any better with Obama out of office,the next president will be even worse as they always are because of this corrupt one party system disguised as two.
The Democrat party of today is a byproduct of the counter-cultural movement of the 60's. The Republican party isn't. Where as the Democrats party are all in locked stepped. one mind, one thought, no decent allowed, the Republican party is made up of diversity in opinions and believes. From the neoconservatives who use to be the liberal base of the Democrat party during the 50's, 60's and 70's to real conservatives, libertarian-republicans, Tea Party and of course the globalist. And those globalist who have no allegiance to one nation but to the multi-national owned corporations are found in both political parties. And Obama being an internationalist socialist is aligned with the globalist, a world with no borders. The "Trilateral Commission" is real. -> < http://trilateral.org/ > Founded right after Watergate they have been pulling the strings and have had great influence on Presidential administrations, especially the Carter, G.H. Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush and the Obama administration. Reagan not so much. Reagan always put America first but the "commission" did have some influence. But I digress. Barack Obama is the first President who was never vetted. Even today his past is hidden from most Americans. The MSM refused to do their job of finding out who Obama really is. When the MSM failed to do their job other Americans had questions that weren't being answered and cultural-marxism came into play. Anyone who asked about Obama's past were called kooks, racist, "**********s" or birthers. And the birthers, who were the first birthers ??? Hillary Clinton's supporters. For America Obama is the worst President in history, even Jimmy Carter has been seen with a smile on his face for the past six years. Definitely the worse Commander in Chief in history. Definitely an incompetent as President. Or is he ? Obama along with Valerie Jarrett think every thing is on track. What do community organizers do ? They agitate, they divide society. Alinkism, Cloward–Piven strategy, cultural-marxism and the politically correct phrase for cultural-marxism is "political correctness", "multi-culturalism." The radical left hates the term "cultural-marxism."
Me and possum are members in good standing... ... o' the Patriotic Order o' the Peanut Butter an' Jelly Sammiches... ... our motto: Spread it on thick.