We didn't actually go vote this year, My husband was going to vote for Kerry and I was going to vote for Bush! Would had been a wasted trip.
Both of my boys voted and they were split also, 1 Bush 1 Kerry !
Isn't that funny how things work out! We usually don't talk politics here at the house, ends up in a family feud!
We all are so passionate on what we believe, but that is how I wanted my children to obtain knowledge and make their own decisions. I don't want little carbon copies of us! Heaven forbid!
Thanks for asking!
If C.Rice ever runs for President [as a Republican only though] she is definitley one classy lady I'd vote for as President of the U.S. She can be the first Woman/Black President of the United States at the same time.
Hillary Clinton the flake couldn't hold a candle to C. Rice!
You probably want get alot of response here, I posted when Bush was named Time's Person of the Year and not one person acknowledge! I think must are liberal to democrats and do not want to discuss there preferences here! Also plenty live in other countries!
I think Steven would be liberal/democrat!
Oh, I don't think I would say that Seagal Sensei is a liberal Domecrat. Seagal Sensei strikes me as a very educated man. It is good to be a Republican and conservative. However, I do think that even if you consider yourself to be a Republican conservative and that is the way you conduct yourself politically, you ought to still have enough of an open mind to be liberal when its appropriate and flexible to know when it is good and not so good of an idea to conduct yourself from that mode. I don't think its healthy to be one always, its not realistic either.
What many Democrats fail to realize is that in order to help the less walthy and help them, the wealthy have to be making enough money and doing well in there business in order to have the resources to be able to hire the folks in order for them to be able to support themselves. I do not agree with taking from the working class just so that those who don't feel like working don't have to. If there is a legit reeason, like an injury or whatever similar, obviously that person should be taken care of no matter if its from a Democrat/Republican government.
Just giving people welfare and giving no other options like training or schooling is dead wrong and very Democratic. In a way the Democratic philosophy does not apppear to be much different then slavery to me.
Another thing Democrats tend to forget alot about is the fact that the majority of the Confederate Army was Democrat whereas the majority of the Union was Republican. Hmmmmmmmm, see anything to worry about here?
Not all Democrats are bad of course, not possible. However the fundamentals of Democrats seems very strange and not on target at all with the reality we see. It is easy to have no debt in this country, just make the military very weak and leave America less then protected. So, would the Democrats like to have things going well financially and posiibly be invaded because the military was too weak to respond to the threat that the less then compitent intelligence was able to provide? Not to mention the fact that even if the intelligence was accurate and spread properly, the fact is still there that under Democrat President's this country is just not as powerful as it is under a Republican President. Or, would they like the Republican way of building business in the country and making those who have the wealth feel financially secure enough to be able to expand there business and hire people to work for them and at the same time still be strong enough to defend the country against major threats to our way of life here in the United States? Seems like an easy choice to me!
Yes I have voted for a Democrat in other elections, I do have the sense to find out about who is running and what there policies will be, but must of the time you do not get what was promised in a campaign.
Remember 41 "Read My Lips"!
Sense neither will ever talk with SS we do not really know what he is! But I would bet on it!
It was proven in the 80s that the so-called "trickle-down" theory of economics where you make sure the wealthy stay wealthy so that they hire more people absolutely did not work. The wealthy stay wealthy because they take their wealth and hoard it. They are not in the least bit interested in sharing that wealth, at least not voluntarily. Most of the wealthy in industry in the U.S. contract out their work to countries overseas that do not have labour laws so they only have to pay their workers pennies a day instead of dollars an hour, to realise maximum profits, so how does that help the American worker at home? It doesn't, of course.
I am simply staggered at the notion that the Republicans would rather spend 600 billion dollars to fund the war in Iraq, and yet so many Americans at home are not covered by medical insurance. One soldier dies in Iraq and it's a tragedy for the community he came from; tens of thousands die in the US because they have no access to health care, and the attitude is, "so what?". 600 billion dollars would go a long way towards ensuring every person in the U.S. had access to health care. Instead, the government is pissing it away to fund some war that should never have taken place to begin with.
I'm not really starting a debate on politics, left or right; but I find it interesting that those who have money can always justify reasons for keeping it, and resist the notion that there is any kind of social responsibility that comes with great wealth.
Object lesson: Paris Hilton.
-TD, who, if she were an American, would probably be Democrat, and is thanking her lucky stars her father chose to emigrate to Canada instead of the U.S.
I understand your points and there seem to be some good ones. I am not debating either per se. I consider myself in the middle but I do like Bush. When I say I consider myslef in the middle I mean, I often am probably considered conservative Republican, however, I've also been accused of being a liberal or too liberal by some folks. I don't believe that there are ever any always or nevers in this existence. Everything is subject to change, especially mankind or manmade things.
Both Democrat and Republican do appear to have very good complaints about the way the other side does things, I guess what it comes down to is what are the majority willing to tolerate for the next four years in this society. I do not think either side will ever be a perfect fit for all but it seems that as long as the majority is satisfied or thinks they will be thats the way it is, at least for the next 4 to 8 years.
I've never considered myself a member of any political party. I vote strictly on the candidate who supports the agendas I do.
And TD, that's a rather broad, sweeping statement, I think. That's like saying all Canadians are stupid, lazy, like to sit around and drink beer all day, play hockey, and wear snow shoes. Eh? Though I do like individual Canadians.
..... I'm uneasy about American politics in general and the way American social, moral and ethical values seem to be headed, though I do like individual Americans.