True, but is having a million parties and platforms really a better solution? We're kind of seeing that in action with the republican presidential debates of there just being way too many candidates to choose from. I personally have my priorities and vote for the candidate who most accurately represent those priorities. There will never be a party or candidate who will reflect my views 100% and don't think it's realistic to expect so.
It is better. Just because you can't figure out what fruit you want to buy from a grocery store it shouldn't mean that all grocery stores should simply sell apples and oranges so you can make up your mind. Choice is never a bad thing. I do agree that too much is too much but having 10-20 different ones would still function while actually giving you a wide variety to choose from, to find someone you actually agree with.
I believe the Tea Party got pounced by the Republicans that helped to fund the movement, and thus they became 'partners' in that respect. I do think choice is good, but too much choice for the same party means that there isn't a party line. It confuses people when there is too much choice, and a wise party would choose a few and then let them battle it out. You have to look in the mind of a voter, and if they get confused, most won't vote. Most will go for a popular choice or choose based on appearances. Not the best way to vote, but some will.
Obama is convening secret meetings this very moment to "spread democracy" to Agrabah by toppling Prince Ali, the current ruling monarch.
Well many of the republicans voting base comes from the arms/defense industry. Your really asking them if they want to make money and keep their jobs, they don't really care where they bomb
That might play a part but I doubt that people working in the weapons industry are such a huge part of the population that this fact alone would explain the large amount of yankees wanting to bomb places that don't even exist.
Well, I guess this thread is a breather from the serious topics of investment. But with the bombing of a fictitious place, it is like playing a game. But anyway, maybe the voters should focus on their task of electing someone who fits the office and not one who is good in rhetorics. You know politics, one should be good in the so called public relations and public speaking as well in order to attract the voters.
What this may encourage is that people ask where somewhere is and are they are war with them or helping the allies. I wonder what the people who did vote to bomb Agrabah feel? Foolish, or that they should have thought more about it? Maybe people will think twice about answering such questions in future.
I don´t think it is so much directly the people who work for or have financial interests in war, it is the amount of brain-washing they have done over the last few decades. Remember, while selling the war on Iraq, Bush et el basically told us if you did not support the war, you were not patriotic. People who did not support the war were grouped with the French. Remember the whole issue with French Fries, where not wanting to bomb people or go to war meant you were weak? Then they start the war, and if you are against the war you are unpatriotic for not supporting the ´troops´. The defense industry, and companies like Haliburten lead by Dick Cheney did a good PR job of equating being patriotic with being a war-monger. Somehow showing support for the troops meant putting them into unnecessary wars and then not having the infrastructure back home when they come back mutilated.
