I wouldn't agree with them half the time, but the Right-wing is so deeply planted, we need someone to rip them out and bring some moderation back to America.
2007-12-06 04:35:43 · 16 answers · asked by You 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Note: I am NOT endorsing Hillary Clinton.
2007-12-06 04:36:47 · update #1
I guess that means we should elect Dennis "The Menace" Kookcinich.
AD
2007-12-06 04:42:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
this is the funniest positioned up i've got ever seen (and that i've got seen lots!) you're saying that some actual everyone seems to be communists (which comprise Nancy Pelosi), yet then you definately cry while somebody relatively solutions your question and factors out which you're incorrect. You ask for a debate, yet then once you lose you cry! Sorry, YA is for grownups. the 1st element you need to do is discover out what the enormous words you ought to jot down approximately advise. that's undeniable stupid to allege something once you do no longer even know if what you're saying is authentic. then you definately ought to discover particular examples to illustrate that an offense has somewhat been dedicated. whilst the words "socialist" and "communist" are actually not favourite in the USA, you haven't any longer demostrated that a) advocating those philosophies is undesirable, or 2) any member of Congress (different than Bernie Sanders) is a socialist. i might ask you: why do conservatives say that quoting them is mendacity? The Newt replace into caught on video preserving that the Ryan funds plan replace into no longer a great theory, yet he pronounced if all people confirmed the video, it could be a lie. and additionally you have made a assertion approximately "finished clown communism," yet i'm beneficial you will ***** i'm nitpicking once I ask you to call a communist clown.
2016-10-19 10:03:02 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The system of financing campaigns requiring many large donations means that you need the support of a lot of rich people to win. That means we will never have a far left viable candidate. Without election contribution laws George Soros could back such a candidate instead of Move-ON.
2007-12-06 05:00:38 · answer #3 · answered by meg 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What would be the moderation in a far left Liberal communist?
I believe like another answerer stated, if we go left , we may end up like Vietnam, Cuba, Venzuela etc., and this country hopefully, will never end up that way.
.
2007-12-06 04:45:28 · answer #4 · answered by Moody Red 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because it will create more backlash, and move EVERYONE to the right. Never underestimate the power of the reactionaries.
2007-12-06 04:57:45 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look how well it worked out for Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, and the forer Soviet Union and you will have a pretty good idea why it doesn't work out here
2007-12-06 04:41:48 · answer #6 · answered by Tip 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Just because you disagree with one extreme doesn't mean the other extreme is best. You cannot buy moderation through extremism.
2007-12-06 04:48:44 · answer #7 · answered by Dan 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
because there would be no America, in 2 days
2007-12-06 04:47:29 · answer #8 · answered by Seth D 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If they are insane, it's obvious why you shouldn't vote for them. We shouldn't vote in someone to far out in either direction in my opinion. I don't know of any Communists running for office.
2007-12-06 04:41:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well, there is no insane, far left Liberal Communist running. The furthest left out there is Kuchinich and he doesn't have much of a chance.
2007-12-06 04:39:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
Hugo Chavez already has a job.
2007-12-06 04:50:31 · answer #11 · answered by Barry auh2o 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋