Do they know it, but choose to ignore it? Do they truly not believe that she would be a more polarizing president than George W. Bush? Are they blind or do they choose to be?
2007-11-08 15:03:28 · 7 answers · asked by reaganite27 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It takes two to tango. There's no polarization without dissent.
And before anyone says that I'm a facist for disliking dissent, let me clarify that if its not you dissenting now, it'll be the people you dislike that will be dissenting if you ever rise to power.
Isn't "dissent the highest form of patriotism?" Would these same dissenters enjoy that phrase as much if someone they agreed with came to power, and others chastised their views?
It took me a while, but I guess my point is that it is not Bush that is polarizing when the people who claim to be polarized by him CHOOSE to be on the other side of him. There's ways to work together and reach a compromise.
2007-11-08 15:14:53 · answer #1 · answered by null 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hillary is a much more polarizing figure to A LOT of people! I have heard staunch Democrats say they wouldn't want her in power.
I want you to understand that she would polarize America in MANY ways. I see A LOT of socialism in many of her ideas & history has proven that socialism gives you one of two things: 1) Complacency due to lack of competition or 2) Communism -- Neither of these do I want, so I am anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton. Others, even some Democrats, are anti-female President. I would vote for a female President, if she’s a good candidate & I agree with her stance on the issues that are important to me, but Hillary is not that candidate! Some are anti-Clinton…any Clinton. I’m not going to condemn her for her family, because that’s not fair. Some people think she showed weakness in handling Bill’s extra-martial affairs, so say strength. I’m not sure on this one.
Personally, I would almost vote for the Devil, himself, before I would vote for her!!! Actually, if those were my choices maybe I just leave the country!
She was a polarizing figure as a First Lady & as a Presidential candidate, she’s even more polarizing!
2007-11-08 23:34:07 · answer #2 · answered by SusanB 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on what you mean by polarize. For the majority of Americans--80-90%, Hillary will tend to reduce the current polarization (that doesn't mean all that number will be supporting her--but there will be a return to the bipartisanship that is the norm in the United States).
However, if you look at the hard-core right wing/religious right--then yes. The split between this group ad the mainstream of America will deepen and widen. That, however, is all to the good. The elements within this group (not the rank-and-file, who are simply misled) that drive the anti-American agenda of the extreme right are--and will continue--to bemore and more marginalized. And that is as it shouldbe--these are not people who revere America or shar its values and traditions. They can--and should--be driven out of the real America, just as white supremecists were 40 years ago.
2007-11-08 23:22:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Who do you think you're kidding ??
Gawdalmighty, the neo-con repubs are somethin' else, aren't they ??
They're gonna lose everything in '08 and still keep hangin' on to the shreds of the Bush administration and/or anything that remotely resembles 'republican' !!
'susan', susan, susan, my dear young lady(I assume) - I live in Canada where 'socialist' policies that help EVERYONE are in place. Good gawd, how you are brainwashed. My country is far better off than yours for just this reason. We try our best(except maybe our present Prime Minister, who is a 'mirror-image of Dubya) to include everyone in our medical care, for instance. Education is available on an equal basis for everyone, etc., etc.
It's not utopia, but when your country has more than 40 million people not covered by any medical insurance and our country hasn't ANYONE who isn't - go figure. Which is better ??
2007-11-09 00:05:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We SHOULD be polarized - that's what keeps us talking.
You want to talk about "polarized" - look back at the debates by the founding fathers in the 1700's over creating this nation to begin with. That was some intense stuff.
The problem is - the Republicans don't want to debate at all - they just want us to blindly do as they say.
They want us to "do as they say - not as they do".
2007-11-08 23:10:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
So what? The cons got there 8 years to polarize, now the dems get their 8 years. It's like a tennis match.
2007-11-08 23:07:12 · answer #6 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
She will polarize the nation definitely.... will she polarize it more than Bush? I don't think that would be possible... Bush has polarized the nation to the extreme; Hillary can't do more damage.
No more Clintons or Bushes please.
2007-11-08 23:10:36 · answer #7 · answered by cattledog 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋