ANSWERS: 19
  • they can when it suits their advantage
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for your comment :)
  • They deify their political potions as some form of religion. That much devotion to a thing like this is just a sign of insanity.
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for the comment :)
  • What they're really fighting for is **1** re-election **2** increased power/control over the government. Any undermining of the opposite political party improves one's chances of achieving those goals.
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for the comment :)
  • The whole point of different parties is that the members have different political and social philosophies. Naturally they are going to butt heads. It would be surprising if they didn't. However, the public doesn't realize that most of the time, they DO work together. Many bills are passed with bipartisan support. We don't hear about them because there's no fighting or struggle surrounding them. We hear only about the bills and other legislative actions that generate conflict and controversy.
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for the comment :)
    • Hulk70156
      What bills have they passed recently with bipartisan support. Please let me know, I am not aware of any.
  • Because they have put party before country and people, and that seems to be ok with the people who vote them into office. I think that we should amend the constitution to say that every elected official is only allowed 2 terms, just like potus, and then they have to leave and get a real job.
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for the comment :)
  • socialism and capitalism can't co-exist.
    • Victorine
      In the first place, most Democrats are not "socialists". Joe Biden certainly isn't one. If you think otherwise, you don't know what the word means. In the second, capitalism and socialism co-exist quite well in many western countries. In fact, the only socialism that interests most Americans is European-style "soft-socialism," sometimes called Social Democracy. It combines capitalism with good benefits for citizens. We already have soft-socialist programs in the US. They include Medicare, Social Security, and public schools, among other things all Americans want and need. Capitalism and socialism are co-existing nicely here, and we'll be even better off with a good universal health-care system such as our western allies enjoy.
    • Charin Cross
      socialism is an abject FAILURE in all the countries that embrace it. ask the people NOT the politicians.
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for the comment :)
    • Victorine
      Charin, you clearly know nothing at all about socialism. You certainly haven't lived abroad as I have. Stop pretending that you actually know anything about the subject. You clearly do not.
    • Chicagoan
      "Charin, you clearly know nothing at all...." that is most accurate.
  • There's right, and there's wrong. I see very little common ground between the two.
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for the comment :)
    • Chicagoan
      Says the Trump supporter. Trump buys whores while his wife is in the hospital. He evades taxes. Illegally dodged the military. Admits to sexually assaulting women. A racist White Supremacist. Incited an Attack on the US Capitol building. Eh, the list goes on and on. And you people worship that. So much for "right & wrong" ---
  • With all the criminal activity and conspiracy nonsense in the GOP today, nobody can work with those whackos.
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for the comment :)
  • Maybe because people like you keep posting questions like this that keep it stirred up! Can you really not see the cause and effect here? Go look through your list of questions and see how many of just this sort of instigating and antagonistic questions you've posted (at least those that staff DIDN'T delete) and then ask yourself if you are part of the problem or part of the solution!! Are your questions intended to make the situation better or keep it stirred up?
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for the comment :)
    • Chicagoan
      Linda - why don't you ever call out the people on your side of the fence when they do the very same thing? Look at Kevin's question -- all antagonistic, always whining about Democrats. Look at Archie Bunker -- everything he posts is antagonistic, and most of it is dishonest. But hey! They're in the right wing, so it's OK, right?
    • Chicagoan
      And Linda - one website can only go so far with questions like "What's your favorite Kleenex box" and "Who makes the best pizza" -- there really are people here who are more than 8 years old and who are interested in questions that aren't just for airhead children.
    • Linda Joy
      I don't have a 'side of the fence', and if you think they are antagonistic then YOU call them out. Don't tell me who I can and can't call out or comment about. And if you don't like the question skip it! I'm not telling you what questions and answers YOU can post and not post. Go away and leave me alone! I didn't call your name!! Your personal attacks will soon be reported.
    • Chicagoan
      Just noticing that you are a huge hypocrite. That was the point. That you cannot admit comes as no surprise. And yeah, go ahead, keep trying to ban anyone who disagrees with you. That seems to be your main goal on this site.
  • They can, and they do in my neighborhood. Its only online that I've seen the political extremists that don't treat each other like human beings. They devolve into animals attacking each other just because they disagree. But just because I think your thought process may have temporarily left the building doesn't mean I hate you and your family and all your ideas are crap! haha. Frankly I usually like to see both sides of a situation. Unfortunately too many people are too busy attacking each other that they don't even discuss either side of the issue and the only thing I've learned is that politics is disgusting and I want no part of it!
    • Linda Joy
      And you particularly don't discuss any of your questions, or answer hardly any questions asked by your answerers. But sometimes I guess it is wiser to say nothing! haha
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for the comment :)
  • Because of election financing reform. Remember McCain-Feingold? The media portrayed it as a good thing for ending the supposed evil of 'Soft Money'. Except this bill was actually DESIGNED to make incumbents safer, and it did exactly that. Soft Money was money the party itself raised and distributed to candidates however it saw fit. And in practice, that almost always meant more money for CHALLENGERS in general elections. Because that was the most effective way to spend. When it was abolished it meant that the natural advantages incumbents enjoy in 'Hard Money' became even more overwhelming. The only way incumbents lose now is through primary challenges from their OWN PARTY. These challenges are powered by 'Dark Money', which is the media's new hobbyhorse. Dark Money comes from third parties that are almost always more radical than the elected incumbent. Since that's where the threat is, elected politicians have to move to be more extreme to protect against these challenges. Thus, cooperating with the other party is something most of them simply can't afford to do. It invites primary challenges.
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for sharing your comment :)
  • Blame the party leaders. 5 years ago, Trump announced he was running for president, and then proceeded to spend most of his time acting like a clown on TV until the election. His behavior angered Democratic leaders while making the ignorant among us very happy. And the Democratic party played right into his hands, widening the divide.
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for sharing your comment :)
  • They have different philosophies.
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for sharing your comment :)
  • Its a question of who takes credit for victory. If Red wins, Blue loses. If people remember Blue gave them their job, they will vote for Blue, visa versa. That is what Obama complained about. He had a job bill, with the exact same language, wording and provisions as the Republicans did but the Republicans voted it down.
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for sharing your comment :)
  • Both parties have different understandings, and often describe two different countries. That's why you hear of America being divided.
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for the comment well appreciated :)
  • They can never work together because one party wants government control and the other party wants to give people freedom to choose. One party has to defeat the other at the voting box.
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for the comment well appreciated :)
    • Chicagoan
      "and the other party wants to give people freedom to choose." Says the guy in the party who wants to strip women of their freedom to choose based on their insipid cult/religious nonsense, and who wants to strip voters of their basic ability to cast a vote, and who lives to make sure every moron can have the FREEDOM to spray a crowd or a workplace with 600 rounds of ammunition per minute.. What a HUGE JOKE.
    • Douglas Wade
      I will not comment on all your point, because it could get a bit long. I will make a statement on your first point regarding the right for women to choose. Science tells us there is a separate life growing inside the mother. Why does science make this claim? Because that baby has his own genetic code, different than that of the mother. In fact, the baby produces an enzyme that confuses the mother body. If the baby did not produce this enzyme the mothers body would seek to destroy this young child because it would deem it a foreign substance. So, base on science we can conclude that this child is its own person and any civilized country has the duty to protect the citizens (including the unborn)within its borders.
    • Chicagoan
      "Science tells us" -- ROFLMFAO! Suddenly you're on the side of science. Holy moley - this has got to be the JOKE OF THE DAY. If men got pregnant, the RIGHT to have an abortion would have been written directly into the Constitution from Day 1. And you know it. This is about the age-old religious need to smack-down women... you're story loses it's moxy given how the religious turn their backs on children once they are born. There are tens of thousands of children without homes/families - and not a bible-believer to be found to care for them with all of their "outpouring of care" for the "unborn". They're like Monty Python -- "RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!" What complete nonsense.
  • They have very different values.
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for the comment well appreciated :)
  • The big reason is money. There is more money available to pay off politicians than before and billionaires are getting into the picture, like the Koch Brothers. The Republicans never were as conservative as they are today. That's because the Koch's are contributing to the Republican Party in massive amounts. The Koch's are also extreme hard right ideologues.😖
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for the comment well appreciated :)
  • "Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice—the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but, when united in view of the same object, they have, in many minds, the most violent effects. Place before the eyes of such men a post of honor, that shall, at the same time, be a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it." - Benjamin Franklin in a speech at the Constitutional Convention, 1787.
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for the comment well appreciated :)
    • Hulk70156
      Wow, We actually agree on something 1465

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy