Why must it stop? It's the truth. Republican policies do not benefit the poor. It has nothing to do with the financial worth of the candidates, but the policies they push. Dixiecrats are now the Tea Party Libertarians.
Lincoln wasn't a social liberal. Yes, he freed the slaves because he believed that it was wrong for a human being to be owned by another but he didn't like black people. His presidency largely consisted of the Civil War but that wasn't a left vs right issue. He was once quoted as saying that if by keeping slavery legal it would reunite the states he would keep slavery
Different sides of the same coin, isn't it? The rich and wealthy Democrats in Congress constantly advocate policies that they, themselves don't participate in. How is it that most of them managed to avoid Obamacare? I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I am from the party of anti-politicians. I support the original concept here that way too many people in positions of power have become nothing more than sucklings off the gov't teat but on a much bigger scale.
Nice try. Lincoln believed that the government exists to protect and serve the common man. He rapidly expanded the power of the Federal Government in an attempt to create a government that would better serve what he felt the American people needed. He suspended habeas corpus, instituted an income tax and the first draft, all considered to be very radical ideas at the time. Many will argue that this expansion was made only because of war time needs, but we'll never know because he never Presided over a day of Peace Time. As far as slavery goes, while he may have set aside his desires to see the slaves freed if that's what it took to keep the country together that in now way removes the fact that stopping the expansion of slavery and eradicating slavery altogether was a founding principal of Lincoln's Republican Party. It is one of the biggest reasons as to why he identified with the GOP. (The other was the movement to have the government distribute land in the West to farmers who would in turn develop it.) He was very much anti-slavery, but recognized that perhaps it was not yet the time for this to happen if the country split as a result. The fact that he was willing to compromise this despite his hatred of slavery make you look foolish for attempting to argue against his liberalism. Compromise does not come easy, if at all for a conservative. {Pragmatism is most definitely a liberal trait. He even cautioned against handing too much power to business leaders (corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed) which is a liberal tenet if I ever heard one. Lincoln was a raging liberal...
I would've thought that too. After looking and seeing the link below, I was shocked. I don't know how credible my source is but it claims to be recent (Sept 2014). http://ri.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVjVuZkBUKv4APEkPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByZDBpbXI5BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--/RV=2/RE=1413535470/RO=10/RU=http://www.statisticbrain.com/food-stamp-statistics//RK=0/RS=v9lA3tIuMA_f98riAYAj6Z6AOgY- I am in agreement there. When less than 50% are even eligible in that context, it's not close. In fact looking at that link is it fair to say that food stamp participation has dropped since 2012? And under a Democratic prez? OMG.
Today's politicians are voted on based on popularity, not credibility or experience. Once elected they do everything they can to 1) get reelected 2) get campaign funds. #1 happens to comprise of the least informed voter. Those that vote based on the "what can I get for my vote" set of mind. #2 places conditions on their donations. The "what will my campaign contribution buy me?"
