I don't take much out of the presidential election or that it is a statement on the GOP. Basically the incumbant won . . . when is the last time a democrat incumbant lost?
Yes! The Republican party has to figure out a way to appeal to modern women! I understand why they hang on to the Christian Right but I suspect if you took a sample vs. the general female population they're probably older on average and continuing to be replaced by younger women with modern views. They MUST embrace pro choice. I just want to have the absolute right to go out and have just as nice of a life as you guys without having to get married! But I think anyone who wants to get married should be free to do so!!! I just need the protection to compete, I'm not asking for any other "special" assistance from my government. I'm just as concerned about the economy and the defecit but I could not get behind a candidate who's religious views are so repugnant to me. I mentioned in an earlier post that I didn't actually vote for Obama in 2008. I felt the race had been decided (he was pretty clearly ahead) so I sent a write in vote. This time the race was so close I was using my vote AGAINST Romney by voting for Obama... I could not endorse this guy in any way shape or form and disliked him so intensly I did my best to ensure he was not elected.
Since FDR, only Clinton and now Obama have been elected and re-elected (elected to two terms). Before FDR, Woodrow Wilson was elected to two terms. Neither Clinton nor Wilson got 50% of the popular vote in either of their elections. Obama got ~10M fewer (as it stands now) votes the 2nd time.
they need to beat the dems to the punch on drug legalization and/or drastically shrinking the military, both core libertarian ideas
are socks able to eat cantaloupes with vampire teeth while every eagle that ever lived pours hot sauce in its eyes?
My socks are inanimate. Is someone who wants to "drastically cut the military" also for drastically cutting a 1T annual overrun, or not?
I was reading after I posted...your link hadn't come up yet. I'm much more comfortable with that, though I suspect that "returning the money to the states" won't go as far as the good Gov. thinks it will. His reduction of 25%, even if it could go across the board, would still leave an annual Medicaid deficit as high as 2013's entire DoD budget.
id rather spend money on healthcare than policing the globe with bombs and bullets, might just be me though
it's not just you, there's plenty of people like you. Unfortunately, your worldview doesn't meet with the reality of the world. I'd love for there to be no need for cops or military or people that will stand up to bad guys and bullies. History has shown that that's fantasy.
i guess it comes down to what people would rather pay for, healthcare, or a never ending war where we supply our enemy with guns and training
well, when you put it that way... what would you rather pay for, a ponzi scheme that makes healthcare worse or not letting people bomb the White House?
you can have a healthy military and even help out around the world without incessantly starting wars and constantly occupying other nations too much is too much, but its hard to get the fattest pigs away from the teat i know you like being a cog in the machine and all, but you really dont have to grease yourself
