English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

D's can be too lenient on crime, but R's make a big deal out of small crimes but don't solve major problems. Some D's are too idealistic, but if R's were to totally control everything, the USA would become like a South American dictatorship. If the D's got out of control with bleeding heart generosity, people would (and do) milk the system and the rich would run w/ their $$. The R's can help by watching for abuses of the welfare system, but R cuts to schools is bad. The R plan of "creating more jobs" means cut full-timers and employees w/benefits and create a larger # of new low paying jobs, part time/no benefits. then the economy looks "good" as stockholders celebrate their gains, while workers lose their good jobs and fall into hard times.The D's are smart enough to not blame the poor, and try to protect workers. The R's would borrow $ and start wars to kill off the poor boys forever w/o the D's. Anyway I think both sides can serve a purpose in balancing the other.

2007-07-29 04:41:29 · 6 answers · asked by topink 6 in Politics & Government Government

6 answers

I agree it helps give balance or hopefully give balance for the poor, middle class and rich to equally not be ran over. Of course the middle class aways seems to take the bullet for both the rich and poor.l

2007-07-29 04:55:09 · answer #1 · answered by LadyNTex 1 · 2 0

Most definitely. That's the beauty of the democratic process. In Canada, there are three major parties to keep things balanced: NDP (left), Liberals (centre), and Conservatives (right). In the past decade or so, it has been mainly the Liberals and Conservatives being the main leaders and oppositions, but the NDP does play a huge role in Parliament.

Sorry, Bloc Quebecois, you just haven't made the impact on the federal level to be considered a political powerhouse. lol

2007-07-29 05:03:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

That theory fits beautifully into what the establishment wants you to believe. The Democrats talk a good story and are slightly more progressive on economic and social issues, however, they've not lived up to their promise.

I think it is time for the Green party to take over some seats in congress. The Clinton's have just not done enough good for the average American.

2007-07-29 04:48:04 · answer #3 · answered by Skeptic 7 · 1 0

Democrats suck. Democrats supported slavery and opposed civil rights until Bobby Kennedy conned a few Democrats into siding with the Republicans and passing civil rights. Democrats should all commit suicide for being such losers. Then one of the other real parties that care, like the green party or whatever can come into power. As long as Democrats are out there lying about how much they care about people morons are going to support them and keep the slave mongering anti-civil rights losers in power.

2007-07-29 04:51:06 · answer #4 · answered by gw1500rider 2 · 0 3

The original intent was, by having two partys we would have something down the middle since they would/should be pulling in opposite directions.

Unfortunately, politicians are pulling for themselves in every direction, creating chaos.

2007-07-29 04:49:33 · answer #5 · answered by ed 7 · 0 0

Definitely. 8 years of one party is enough. Things become unbalanced and you feel it in your life pretty dramatically.

2007-07-29 05:05:28 · answer #6 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers