3 ms·
Sure, but people keep voting for the same type of candidates. The only anti-intervention / melding candidate last time around was Ron Paul, but he was "crazy"
by cpursley 13y ago
Sure, but people keep voting for the same type of candidates.
The only anti-intervention / melding candidate last time around was Ron Paul, but he was "crazy" right? Am I right?
Instead, we end up with a hopie-changie nobile-peace-prize wining drone/scan/spy neocon in disguise.
Of course, I saw this one coming. I hope the left and right have learned their lesson, but I highly doubt it.
- Nursie 13y agoRP would probably have made a lot of regressive changes at home. He's not very good on women's rights or other issues.
- cpursley 13y agoHe'd have to work with congress on some of the controversial stuff, but as commander in chief, he could of ended the wars and not dragged the USA into new ones. Anyways, if you look into his voting record, he hasn't actually spent much time on the abortion issue other than some comments on his beliefs. Furthermore, he sees it as a states rights as he does many issues. Speaking of regressive, what has President Obama changed?
- Nursie 13y agoOh nothing really, I'm not that enthusiastic about any of them :)
- stephencanon 13y agoUtterly batshit crazy, yes. We are discussing a man who has repeatedly called for the elimination of public education and the privatization of all federal land, believes that climate change isn't a serious issue, wants to eliminate social security entirely, believes that there should be no professional licensing, and thinks that there's a need to add the qualifier "honest" when discussing rape, to say nothing of his economic rants. In support of this insanity, he offers no rationale beyond an unshakable belief in the primacy of individual liberty (but not for pregnant women!) and the notion that life was better in 1900, which is demonstrably false by every reasonable metric. Even a stopped clock ...