Let's face it: As a nation, we need to figure out a non-partisan way to have representation that is working *for* us. I think our nation is deeply divided by screeching extremists in the media, which has gone from information and entertainment to mean and low political jabs.
What do you think? Regardless of your political affiliation, do you think there is a candidate or a party out there capable of actually Uniting our Union?
2007-08-15 08:32:30 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Add:
H_a_T:
**********************...
THE LIB THUMBS DOWN
MY BADGE OF HONOR!
**********************
How sad for our country, that patriotism is such sport for you.
2007-08-15 08:41:32 · update #1
From the start of your question "Idiot King", you don't seem to keen on non partisan to begin with. But the only way to get out of the extremes we are in, would be to disband all the parties and just go with individual candidates. Get rid of the primaries and just use all that time for candidates to get out and get their message/position heard.
2007-08-15 08:43:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
sgcet noticed the truth and that's the road to the answer to your question. You say you're wanting to be non- partisan, yet you call the sitting POTUS an "idiot king", revealing you as being rather partisan. You say you want to get rid of extremists, right after you characterize yourself as an extremist to begin with.
The fact of the matter is, we say we want a non- partisan candidate, yet in our hearts, it's the partisan rhetoric that we really want to hear, and it's partisan rhetoric that's going to get two presidential candidates nominated early next year. Most people who say they don't like partisan bickering really mean they don't like bickering against their side.
2007-08-15 08:52:24 · answer #2 · answered by Kyrix 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because of fact it has worked in the previous, works in different international places and in basic terms works. in case you pick to understand what happens as quickly as we undertake Conservative financial rules in the face of a meltdown, evaluate Herbert Hoover, the Republican who replaced into president the 1st 4 years of the super melancholy who did no longer do something yet blame human beings for being "stupid and lazy" for no longer having jobs and not something replaced into solved till FDR got here in and spent massive quantities on bailouts, public works initiatives, etc. The inflation from those initiatives helped us shrink a deficit. of direction, too a lot inflation might desire to be undesirable, yet recessions can get so undesirable that money self-destructs, which very almost befell in the 30's. the key's to spend relatively a lot of money, redistribute wealth by present day taxation and create financial incentives.
2016-10-02 09:40:38 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem is that even if one of the candidates attempts to act non-partisan, the others will block his/her actions. We need to change the type people we put in office. Limit or do away with lobbyists and limit the pay and benefits politicians get as well as what they can do once out of office.
If we do this, we will get people who want to represent the people, not line their pockets!
2007-08-15 08:41:52 · answer #4 · answered by B. D Mac 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I interpret the situation somewhat differently.
The Democrats have to change their tactics. It is obvious that the Republicans are going to do everything in their power to obstruct nearly all Democratic initiatives.
As far as Iraq is concerned, all future funding should be based on a take it or leave it bill. If Bush threatens to veto, he should be informed beforehand that the bill being sent to him is the only funding bill he is going to see.
The Democrats also have to publicize each and every obstructionist move on the part of the Republicans. The public needs to understand what is actually going on and who is at fault.
2007-08-15 08:58:05 · answer #5 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
well, first of all you can quit calling our president names. it really does not progress the conversation. and you did not refer to the congress in that way so you are creating or perpetuating the partisanship issue. secondly, our politicians are doing the same as you. they create strife rather than focusing on issues. like h. clinton saying the soilders are invisible to the president, the ones that are hurt. she is insane. that creates more problems than it solves and she knows it is not true. she is just creating a wider division which keeps getting harder and harder to bridge. it is not the parties it is the people within them. check out dailykos, they show joe liberman in front of gwb getting ready to give him a hummer. what is the point other than to spew hate? none. the peoples mindset has to change and so do our politicians. i want to know what they CAN DO not what the others CAN'T.
2007-08-15 09:06:23 · answer #6 · answered by BRYAN H 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
"Non-partisan" is "non-sense"--look, this is the same kind of thing we get from people who say they want things "right down the middle"..OK, right down the middle--every OTHER woman who wants one can have an abortion, we'll let every OTHER illegal alien in, we will only send half the troops we actually need to win a war, we'll give everybody half of the medical care they need, etc., etc. , etc..
"Non-partisan" doesn't mean beans--these issues are not going to be settled in a non-partisan manner.
2007-08-15 08:47:10 · answer #7 · answered by makrothumeo2 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Your question contains a political jab. Dictatorships are pretty non-partisan - maybe that would be better.
2007-08-15 08:55:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Close the borders. Cut off trade with everyone. Fix OUR country first, then decide who and what to let back in.
2007-08-15 08:38:33 · answer #9 · answered by magix151 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
It is why I intend to watch, and participate in Unity08.com
2007-08-15 08:39:32 · answer #10 · answered by SteveA8 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋