3 ms·
>The next political party gets in power and does the same thing, except for the other half. Can you give some examples? I'd say centralization of power has bee
by Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
>The next political party gets in power and does the same thing, except for the other half.
Can you give some examples? I'd say centralization of power has been mostly one sided for the past century or so. (FDR, JFK, LBJ)
- norwalkbear 4y agoGeorge Bush and the Patriot act
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y agoI was actually thinking that, but I also think the Patriot Act was largely bipartisan. From wikipedia[0] >Passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66) >Passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1) 62 nays from democrats in the house[1], and only one nay in the senate and one not voting[2]. I'd say its more like Bush just happened to be president at the time. He didn't run with Patriot Act as his "platform" either (obviously). It also isn't directly about taking away state power in the first place so from that alone it isn't a great argument. That said, Patriot Act to me really seems like a turning point (for the worse) in US history. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act [1]https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml [2]https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1071/vote_107_1_00313.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...
- Clubber 4y agoI agree, I think on many aspects for the last 40 years, we have a uni-party disguised as a dual party. National security is one of those aspects. Having said that, the Patriot Act was proposed / championed by the GOP, but the Democrats were also culpable. I would add the drug war and militarization of police to the more-GOP side, but again, both sides are largely culpable.