2007-09-30 03:31:49 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Why have the Democrats gone to hell?
2007-09-30 03:32:21 · update #1
She is the front runner, a Bush clone!, what the hell is wrong with this country?
2007-09-30 03:33:04 · update #2
The Democrats are part of the same corrupt, wealthy, corporate cabal, the same gangsters that have taken over the country. They are the ones that empowered the executive branch to launch an illegal war, even though aware of the many lies and pretenses presented to the world. The rich, ruling elite always have their way at the expense of the working class. When was it ever any other way? Howard Zinn reveals the corruption well in his book, "The People's History of the United States." To believe that Democrats offer anything other than more corruption is buying into the lie.
2007-09-30 03:34:52 · update #3
Because she's a political hack that should not get the democratic nomination.
2007-09-30 04:05:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If what you say is true, I may vote for the socialist this next election. She's probably thinking she has a shot at the white house and now she's aware that all the of liberal rhetoric isn't going to get it done, that Bush governed the way he did for a reason, and that doing anything else is completely foolish.
But don't forget, Hillary comes down squarely on both sides of every issue and has been learning from Slick Willie all along the art of sticking a wet finger into the air. She's really good at being all things to all people now, much better than when she got everyone upset with her by insinuating she was part of the government back when she was merely the wife of an elected official.
2007-09-30 03:48:27 · answer #2 · answered by dagiffy 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because she's a Leftist, and this is what Leftists do. You seem to be harboring some delusion that this is the exact opposite of what the Left Wing is about, no doubt owing to the totalitarian propaganda of Howard Zinn (who supported the Communist dictatorships which ran surveillance police states that make even your most outlandish of Corporate Boogeyman conspiracies look tame by example) you spout off about.
2015-05-31 12:23:26 · answer #3 · answered by Cody M 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What an easy, uncomplicated world it would be if you were right.
The truth is that contenders for the position of representative always make all sorts of promises, fueled by the cries of those who know little about government, and then get into office.
Once in office, they "flip-flop" and don't keep their promises.
Ever wonder why?
Truth is, from a family member whose parents were IN government (C.I.A./Treasury on one side, Saudi Embassy and U.N. on the other), that once they get into the actual position, they have access to the same information as the incumbent, and suddenly realize how stupid their promises were.
They don't flip-flop. They change their minds based on far better data than they had access to.
They don't turn against their base. They realize their base is wrong and do what's right, knowing that their base will turn on them, but preferring that than deliberately doing something stupid that will hurt us.
And we vilify them for it.
We take cheap shots at them.
We call them names.
We spread unfounded rumors about them.
We treat them as 'guilty until proved innocent'.
We act seditiously.
We show our political bigotry.
Is this you, folks?
Or is it something you actively fight (not by copying it)?
2007-09-30 03:56:41 · answer #4 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Probably because at the time she voted for them, she saw great power and influence arising from that vote. She doesn't think like a servant of the people; every move she makes is carefully crafted to gain her more power or supporters. She's very intelligent, but extremely dangerous. She's entirely unfit to be President.
2007-09-30 03:52:33 · answer #5 · answered by Richard S 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The Dems have had their couple of years of smug "I told you so". Now it just ain't the same, is it? Not much moral high ground for anyone to stand on anymore. Lets not be too self congratulatory. It's time to quit deriding each other and pay serious attention to our solutions to our very serious problems.
2007-09-30 04:11:30 · answer #6 · answered by Rubber Cranium 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Much as I loath saying it, Hillary has shown herself to be a whole lot like Bush (just not consistently enough to gain any trust). The biggest difference is she changes her platform more often than most people change their undies...Oh, and she speaks well.
2007-09-30 03:41:24 · answer #7 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well her husband did data mine millions of domestic phone records during his stint in the white house.
2007-09-30 03:37:55 · answer #8 · answered by ken s 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
So, considering she's on the same ideological plane as bush...she's getting the votes of all the cons here?
2007-09-30 03:45:38 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
She's trying to be Jorge Bush, part 2. She wants amnesty too.
I think she's making a bad choice and I hope she continues with it so she will loose big!
2007-09-30 03:36:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋