No you don't. This snarling pitbull has nothing uplifting in his act. Besides, you don't get to the White House coming across as an excitable boy. Howard Dean in one "yahoo!" moment proved that.
It's fukking pointless to vote I'm Hawai'i. The people here solemnly swear by the Dems no matter the opposition. Nothing changes here, still stuck in the past.
Both parties suck. Without bipartisanship or a new strong, even-keeled party, and an end to corruption we will only maintain status quo; strong in everything but leaders of nothing.
Divided government is the best...Nothing gets done. Nothing is going to get done the next 2 years (like the last 2) because of the elections... Only fools think drastic stuff is going to happen.
Like Reagan and Clinton and GW Bush, didn't get things done under the same circumstances? These guys can make progress if osama isn't a complete dildo. Probably nothing drastic happens but it should in no way be a complete standstill.
We have had a divided government for 34 out of the last 46 years, 4 of the years when we had an undivided gov. were probably the worst 4 years of the last 50 when we had Carter in the White House.
There wasn't much points in voting since all the NY races I could vote for were decided, but I always vote anyway. Here was my experience at the voting site (a public school): I got the ballot and the worker there was showing me how to vote. You see, you mark the box by the Democratic candidate...
I still want Ted Cruz. a Ted Cruz-Rand Paul ticket looks really nice to me. Keep fatso Christie out, he's a RINO.
You know we used to have a politics thread here, but they blew it up, and I don't think the mods really want one to come back, so I'm reluctant to get into a real discussion here. Suffice to say I have no respect for Libertarianism. and especially for so-called Libertarians who, for obviuous reasons of political convenience, are hypocrites about it. For example Paul is anti-abortion rights. How is that a Libertarian position? Don't bother answering - it isn't. There is no civil society without some social mechanism for enforcing rules, mores, that sort of thing. There is no private property without the law protecting it, which requires some form of collective organization. In other words, government. So once one concedes that government will always be necessary and present, Libertarianism has already lost the argument. It merely becomes a matter of choosing where to draw the line. Why not draw it with more government than less? Libertarianism also in practical terms becomes an excuse for a selfish and self-reverential approach to other people. It appeals to especially younger people who think they don't need anyone else, and those who do need others to help are merely in the way of their "freedom" to do whatever they like. I do think there should be a presumption in favor of personal freedom, but as a practical matter it should also be easily overcome. But most of all, Libertarianism is a problem because the pursuit of it ends up encouraging the growth of wealth inequality, which ultimately is destructive of democracy and civil society. You had to ask, right? Hopefully the mods shut this thread down.
It's called the libertarian, not anarchist. It's about less government, not no government. I agree his stance on abortion is hypocritical to his general stance on government and I think it's stupid. I also diagree with him. But I don't get why people always go straight to an issue that almost certainly isn't going to change any time soon. Is that the most important issue in this country? Top 10? I don't know why we wouldn't be allowed to talk politics?
