"change" or "status-quo"

[jmoney85]

First, as natepro said you have to define "change", but I think the majority on both sides and Independents are duped into believing that a vote for one of the two parties is a vote for some form of change.

The narrative may differ, but in the end a vote for mainstream D's and R's is a vote of approval of the status quo. There are endless examples of policies that have not changed for decades, regardless of which party is in power.

thissssss

[Wrigheyes4MVP]

We need to stop with these stupid wars...thats all I know.

Too much money and too many lives at stake...and I don't think the gains will ever be worth it.

Bring the troops home already.

[lolPhillies]

And hire us once we are back...

[GA16Angels]

There's a lot of things I'd change. I'd change and reverse Obama Care, I'd change and say gays and not religious people can have a civil union which is the exact same thing as marriage with 100% same thing. (I would have a civil union). Id' change the tax code, I'd change the weed laws and legalize it, I'd change the speed limits up. I'd change the way schools to a voucher system completely.

I have to ask, if a civil union is the exact same thing as marriage, why do you think gay people should be able to get one but not the other?

[debo]

And hire us once we are back...

Only if you have the skills applicable to the job.



I think it's incredibly important for military vets to get a 4 year education after the military. I rarely see that around here, and it's, frankly, stupid to NOT get higher education and make yourself marketable.

[debo]

I have to ask, if a civil union is the exact same thing as marriage, why do you think gay people should be able to get one but not the other?

That's not what he means (I think). From a government standpoint, they'd all be equal as a civil union. If performed in a religious setting, it would be a "marriage," but that wouldn't provide any benefit to the couple.

[GA16Angels]

That's not what he means (I think). From a government standpoint, they'd all be equal as a civil union. If performed in a religious setting, it would be a "marriage," but that wouldn't provide any benefit to the couple.

I don't think that can be right since it's possible to get married away from a religious setting already and I think it has been since around the 50s.