We already know that Obama will not destroy the country in 4 years. As for Romney, it is a real possibility. Besides, voting for a fascist would make you feel dirty for the rest of your life.
Фашистской я, например, считаю партию, которая стремится всё передать в руки государства: налоги, образование, здравоохранение, потом рабочие места и т.д. . Так что мы тут не сойдемся в определениях.
А в чьих руках должны быть налоги? По крайней мере мы выяснили, что вы не понимаете разницы между социализмом западноевропейского типа и фашизмом. Почитайте про историю фашизма хоть что-нибудь, ну хоть Википедию...
Romney will not either. This country is too great to be destroyed in just 4 years, although not for the lack of trying - Carter certainly did try, and so did Bush Junior. Imho, the danger is not the implosion, but slow decline...
In fact, I do not think that the actual policies of either of those two, would be that different, despite the rhetoric. What is amazing is how the people, the voters, get taken by one or the other rhetoric, time after time after time..
Romney himself will not, but Republican dogma will. The main threat for this country is growing social inequality, which will destroy its unity and plunge into social warfare. Bush W did a lot to make it happen, and four more years of Republican government will very likely make this trend irreversible.
Obama is not really doing anything to reduce the inequality either, nor do I think ANY President could do it just by himself - it is being wrought upon the country by much larger, systemic, global forces.
Do you mean O's wimpy halfhearted attempt to repeal some of the Bush tax cuts? That was just a token effort and even if he would have succeed, the wealthy would have been marginally poorer and the rest of us no wealthier than before. The inequality has much deeper roots and cannot be cured by such simplistic means - if it could be cured at all.
Clearly, the taxes will will have to go up for all of us, and public spending drastically cut if we were to tackle the deficit. But large sectors of public continue to be in denial about this fact, and politicians of both parties (including both presidential candidates) continue to pander to the denialists
No, they were a tolerant bunch..:-) But all of them were lawyers and "activists" of one kind or another - union activists, gay activists, feminist activists, a civil rights lawyer, a few personal injury lawyers etc.
Not one on the whole plane who would be involved in productive economic activity, no engineers or farmers or entrepreneurs. Get my drift?...
I remember two "gay activists" telling me they are going to have a great time at the Convention and showing pockets full of condoms...
Well, the funny thing about GOP support base is that a large portion of it is people who already have socialism-like support networks: farmers with their subsidies, the military, Mormons and other members of tight religious communities...
Quite true, but not surprising: solidarity and support network is a huge competitive advantage needed to survive and thrive, Ayn-Rand-bullshit nonwithstanding.
And this is exactly why many Republican constituencies reject the idea of distant big government - in their eyes it is largely extraneous, as many of its functions are already being performed by their private support networks.
Democratic constituencies, on the other hand, tend to be much worse at self-government and much more atomized in general.
Reply
Reply
По крайней мере мы выяснили, что вы не понимаете разницы между социализмом западноевропейского типа и фашизмом. Почитайте про историю фашизма хоть что-нибудь, ну хоть Википедию...
Reply
In fact, I do not think that the actual policies of either of those two, would be that different, despite the rhetoric. What is amazing is how the people, the voters, get taken by one or the other rhetoric, time after time after time..
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Clearly, the taxes will will have to go up for all of us, and public spending drastically cut if we were to tackle the deficit. But large sectors of public continue to be in denial about this fact, and politicians of both parties (including both presidential candidates) continue to pander to the denialists
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Not one on the whole plane who would be involved in productive economic activity, no engineers or farmers or entrepreneurs. Get my drift?...
I remember two "gay activists" telling me they are going to have a great time at the Convention and showing pockets full of condoms...
Reply
Reply
And this is exactly why many Republican constituencies reject the idea of distant big government - in their eyes it is largely extraneous, as many of its functions are already being performed by their private support networks.
Democratic constituencies, on the other hand, tend to be much worse at self-government and much more atomized in general.
Reply
Leave a comment