That last one is a trick question. Depends on how you define “war”. By some accounts we never stopped being in a state of war somewhere since well before 1998. But if you ask congress, last time was WWII.
It’s not a trick question. It’s obviously referring to a war on the scale of WW2. A total war that requires major government intervention in the economy and everyday life. That’s why it says “full scale war,” not merely “war.” The last full-scale war we had was WW2.
Nothing about socialized healthcare. Pathetic.
That’s because everyone knew it wouldn’t happen.
Will America have socialized medicine by 2050? Upvote for yes downvote for no.
I never would have expected in 1998 just how many of these would come to pass, how close we are on AIDs and Cancer, and that we still would not have elected a woman president
I mean, the issue with the female president thing is that people keep pushing too hard for it. At this point we’ve had multiple female vice presidential candidates, multiple female presidential candidates, and a female vice president. The Dems had a big influx of female congresspeople in the last few years, and some of the most prominant GOP voices are women. While there are still non-negligible barriers to women assuming leadership roles, there are certainly fewer than there used to be, and there is no obvious reason why a woman couldnt be president. Which is essentially what a reasonable person would want - a woman should be president because there are no female specific barriers for entering the role, and then via a normal statistical distribution, eventually one will be elected.
The problem is that the two female presidential candidates we’ve had have been bad candidates. They were establishment politicians running in an anti-establishment climate, where the Democratic party was hoping that the identity politics of running a female candidate would outweigh the unpopularity of the candidates themselves. And then when they inevitably lose, their boosters cry misogyny rather than recognizing that they simply ran a bad candidate.
We can contrast the Harris and Clinton campaigns with the Obama campaign. Obama had a popular (if fluffy) message and was a legitimately charismatic and appealing candidate from outside the party establishment. His campaign was “Hope and Change”, not “Look, he’s black! Everyone vote for him or you’re racist!” But the overemphasis on Clinton and Harris’ sex was actively off-putting to voters. Everyone can implicitly tell if you are get votes from identity politics, and they don’t like it.
And then when they inevitably lose, their boosters cry misogyny rather than recognizing that they simply ran a bad candidate.
That the thing - those two aren’t mutually exclusive. Harris’s platform was flimsy and constructed out of bullshit. But if she instead had been a white male, it’s very possible trump would have lost. His platform was ALSO flimsy and constructed out of shit.
One day we may very well achieve actual equality. But today, a woman of mixed ethnicity has more barriers to overcome than a loud rich old white man.
