No, they're not. They're just consistently populist, and that doesn't pad the politicians' pockets enough for their liking.
What I said is that they won't vote if there's no liberals on offer. Their definition of liberal is pretty clear-cut. Just look at their ballot votes. They're so consistent that they consistently win.
No, obviously you don't. Even Clinton himself has admitted his policies played a role in the recession.
Just because he had a surplus at the time does not mean he didn't harm the economy in the long run. And let me just say, he was also president during a huge tech boom that had NOTHING to do with him. In reality, Clinton was just lucky enough to be president during a period of huge amounts of innovation worldwide.
Those housing plans eventually lead to those people losing their houses in 2008. Not without help from Dubya, but what Clinton did with the economy and deregulation was thoughtless and short-sighted.
I'm an autodidact with no use for university, actually, but good to know you look down on people seeking education. Why do so many Americans take such pride in their anti-intellectualism? Anyway...
And no, he wasn't. You don't seem to understand that the affects of a presidency don't just abruptly stop when they leave office.
He was a good talker, I'll give him that much. But if 2008 and the most incarcerated population on earth is the price of that, I'll pass.
You do know what pulling Godwin means, don't you? It means you've automatically lose the debate by resorting to completely asinine hyperbole to try to make your point.
My conscience says America either needs to be repeatedly slapped until the beast wakes, or it's going to be one of the many sad, slow, slides into chaos that many empires before us have gone through. I don't know which is worse.
eace
