2007-07-12 06:14:09 · 22 answers · asked by Ringo G. 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The dems were elected to stop the war, they could have cut off the war funds, but no, they either hope the war will win them votes in 08, or they like unwinnable wars too.
2007-07-12 06:22:04 · update #1
The dems knew damn well their bills would be vetod, the only way was to cut off the war funds
2007-07-12 06:24:24 · update #2
Hurrah for you... Both of the major political parties have grown greedy and stale with their own self importance, self centered values, and corrupt government funded by Corporate America. If you strip away all the baloney from them you'll see they're bed buddies. Third parties cause attention to be focused on the voice of the people instead of echoing the rubbish that has stifled the public sentiment. With the current disenchantment that Americans are dealing with, there is a growing sentiment supporting change and the power of third parties is aggressively moving forward. The Green Party is the fastest growing political party in the US today. The major parties are frightened with this evidence and are using whatever dis-information propaganda and the perpetrators of the same to discredit and once again dupe the average American.
2007-07-12 06:16:38 · answer #1 · answered by Don W 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
last time I checked 9/11 and Saddam not cooperating with the UN started this war. I really want it to be over but leaving without finishing the job is pointless.
the guy was right about one thing we do need to finish and not back out like we are French people.
He was wrong first there is an anti money laundering section in the Patriot act that prevents financial support of terrorist groups likle Al Queida (sp) I at least was closer spelling than the last guy. So there are laws in place to stop funding of terrorism, people only look at one part of the Patriot Act and ignore that part, 2nd war for oil is not the reason we are there or we would have cheaper gas prices and would have been home a long time ago.
If a 3rd party presents a good case and I think it has a chance I will consider backing it or checking into it at least, as there aren't any candidates I fully think I want to support.
I don't know if Dems can cross party lines so good luck getting them to vote for the 3rd party.
2007-07-12 06:44:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Totally agree. But who? Mayor Michael Bloomberg? Ron Paul? Who has the cash and clout needed to win an election?
There is a real danger here as well. Let's say a third party gets 45% of the votes, the DNC 33% and the GOP 32% due to the electoral college system CONGRESS would determin the president. My guess is that the Dems would vote their candidate in and we would have a Dem President, one that got only 33% of the popular vote.
2007-07-12 06:28:15 · answer #3 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There have been third parties for decades in US politics, some more significant and powerful than others -- consider the Green, Working Families, Libertarian, Socialist Workers and Right to Life among others but do you see any of them winning a major election outside of some local offices. We are STUCK in a two party system. The question should be not whether it is time for a third party but what can we do to bring it about. We know that both the Reps..... and the Dems.....are going to fight dirty to hold on to their positions so it ain't going to be easy.....Notice I didn't say impossible but sadly I don't have any solutions.
2007-07-12 06:35:57 · answer #4 · answered by Sicilian Godmother 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
both parties are full of crooks but the poster starting that debate about bush vetoing the pull-out bills is failing to realize that every time they present the bill, the dems throw a bunch of pork to go with it that no one would approve. furthermore, if we pulled out now and saw iraq go into a full-fledged civil war, i have a feeling that the dems would again blame this on bush...its a damned if you do, damned if you dont situation now.
regardless, third parties will not solve anything but create support for the rep or dems depending where the chip falls. the system is failing but not necessarily because of the structure but rather because of the crooks that are running it. our morals need revision, not our system. and for the record, a majority of dems voted for the war too...
2007-07-12 06:24:25 · answer #5 · answered by Love my Family <3 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Respectfully, America did not start the war. Radical thugs started this war decades ago. We just got serious about it a few years ago.
I am an Independent and would love to see more alternatives.
Are you running? Are any of you that are quick to criticize doing anything to change the landscape?
The US government, elected by all of us, finally responded to years of attacks and we want to pin it on one party. What was the vote in both houses on authorizing the global war and the action in Iraq?
2007-07-12 06:22:54 · answer #6 · answered by Schneiderman 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
President Bush started the conflict, congress gave their approval is he so chose to use that authority, he did. The dems are doing everything they can to get us out, vetoed is what they have gotten in response. Regardless, it is indeed time for some people to step forward and get a viable third party rolling. Both parties are losing members and Independents are growing, now all we need is someone to back.
2007-07-12 06:21:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Correction: The Reps AND the Dems started the war
2007-07-12 06:17:05 · answer #8 · answered by Samm 6 · 9⤊ 2⤋
The only reason third parties fail is because people keep voting for the status quo. If that isn't stupid, I don't know what is. Washington said the two party system will destroy this country. I wonder if he was right?
2007-07-12 06:22:27 · answer #9 · answered by @#$%^ 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Even Fox News accurately reported the Dem efforts to set a timetable for withdrawal and Bush's veto. Weren't you paying attention??
To cut off war funding requires you to cut off all O&M funding. If you cut off O&M, you can't even PAY the troops, let alone bring them home.
As I said, there is no clean option without enough votes to override a Presidential veto. We're not there yet, not even close.
2007-07-12 06:23:16 · answer #10 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋