We preserve our traditions and culture. A president collects taxes and directs the spending of those taxes for our defense and improvement. He, or she, has little to say about our traditions or culture. If Christmas means spending money at the malls for us, then a president is not going to change that. If we want to change that, or keep it the way it is, we must do it ourselves.
Perhaps because buying and selling politicians is what they do? All of the Republican candidates are wealthy millionaires or billionaires, except one, and he is already bought and paid for by other millionaire and billionaires who expect him to do their bidding. Unfortunately, there is only a single candidate running this time who is not a millionaire or billionaire, and who is not bought and paid for by the top 1%.
Exactly. Who could trust anyone who wants to return us to the way things were in the past. Why would they ever want all that that entails: lower wages, a smaller economy, lower education levels, less equality and freedom, dirtier water and air, and good, effective health care was harder to get.
Before voting on Tuesday (or any time in the future), ask yourself, should i vote for someone who promises to return (or restore, or take back, or ...) our country to what it was in the past? Remember, in the past wages were lower, the economy was smaller, education levels were lower, equality and freedom were less, water and air were dirtier, and good, effective health care was harder to get. Or should we vote for someone who wants to improve our condition to levels that are even better than what we have today?
It's a simple question, but one that everyone needs to ask before they vote.
Exactly what the big media and billionaires want. Keep it simple. Don't let the voter get into the mix, or ask questions you don't want to answer.
Trump has also been avoiding the living room and town hall meetings with voters. Just a few big shows with lots of cameras. That is seldom a good idea in NH.
Yeah. How do you explain that. A record turnout, when just 6% of the Iowa population turned out.
That's true. We'll see what happens in NH, a state with half the population of Iowa, but 3 or 4 times the total turnout. Similarly, in SC.
Well, according to Fox, 51,666 Iowans like Cruz and voted for him. That's 1.5% of Iowa's 3.1 million population. Maybe we'll see what the other 98.5% of Iowans think of Cruz later? (We do know that another 4.5% of Iowans voted against Cruz at the Republican Caucuses).
Yes, we do live in a capitalist society, but a capitalist society without government, is anarchy. Our big investment in our nation and our society have always grow with a combination of private and public/government investment. Beginning with the transcontinental railroads, the Panama Canal, our ports, our highways, our schools (including our biggest colleges and universities), jet aircraft, our electrical and communications lines. our GPS system, and much more have all be create with a combination of both government and private investment. That's not going to change any time soon. Investments on our future must still be a combination of both public and private investment.
Our economy will not improve much until we, as a nation, decide that we must invest in the future. The economy isn't going to improve must until we realize that we must invest in the future if we wish to win, with big investments in education, capital improvements, R&D, the national infrastructure, transportation, communications, energy, and more. Until we do that, countries in Europe and Asia will continue to lap us as they invest in their own futures, and we do little or nothing.
Yes, a shutdown, or even a threat of shutdown would have been worse. It's a good thing that senators Cruz, Paul, and Rubio were otherwise occupied, or we might have seen that shutdown. Ryan was right, though. A shutdown now, just before the next election would have been a death knell for the Republicans, as it would prove to voters just before an election that most of today's Republicans just don't know how to govern successfully.
Flint lost half it's population over the past 30 years as GM automated their factories and then pulled out completely. With half the housing in Flint abandoned, the price of a house there was near zero, and property taxes collected not far from that.
When Flint was unable to pay for schools, or infrastructure in 2011, Gov. Snyder appointed an emergency manger, Michael Brown. The emergency manager has complete control and can fire or replace any elected, or appointed, officials he wishes. Citizens and elected officials lose all control over what happens in their town.
No city or town that loses it's employers and half it's population can easily survive without someone who can bring in new employers. Otherwise, property values drop to near zero as the property is abandoned. So far, the governor's emergency manger has failed in that endeavor, and Flint remains in dire straits.
I'm sure you would be happy to drink contaminated water. Others maybe not so much.
And that appears to be exactly what happened in Flint. The state over ruled the local city authorities, and citizens.
Local water supplies are always built and maintained by local governments. It's a matter of states rights. The only time that the feds get involved is if the water crosses state lines, or if the local government asks for federal money because they can't do it themselves.
Flint was being run by the state (the city manager was not elected, but appointed by and reporting to the governor). The city was at bankruptcy, following the shutdown of the GM auto factories in Flint. Control and maintenance of the Flint city water system was managed by the state, as was the entire city government.
"causing jitters amongst Democrats"
The only elections that Bloomberg ever won was as a Republican. And with Bloomberg running his gun control advocacy group, I suspect that it's not the Democrats who would have any jitters if he ran.
Right now younger women support Bernie - at least they do here. Who do you think they will support after the 2 parties chose their candidate this summer?
Bloomberg was Republican mayor of NYC. If he ran, he would split the Republican vote. That would probably give the election to the Democrat, whoever it was. It would make for an interesting race if Sanders was the Democrat: 2 billionaires running against a man with a net worth of a few tens of thousands of dollars. Can we say trying to "buy the White House"? If the Democrat doesn't win, then the election would go to the House and Senate. It could be frightening to see the political wheeling and dealing if Congress must pick the P and VP. How many votes could their billions buy??