|
Post by dapper on Jun 12, 2007 9:00:51 GMT -5
Though there are presently many more candidates running than listed, less than half of the above list have a legitimate chance themselves. With that in mind, cast your ballots.
|
|
0
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by 0 on Jun 12, 2007 9:10:42 GMT -5
I have concerns about all of them for varying reasons. I do think we need a strong leader with some chrarisma for a change. I think Thompson is a straight shooter and not one of these religiously driven nuts. Likewise I like Obama but want to know more about his specific policies and him being a Democrat makes me slightly weary ( not that I like the current Republicans). Plus he speaks like he's got a brain for a change. Guiliani is alot of hype in my book. He just happened to be downtown when the WTC got hit and told some people to come with him. Otherwise he would have been uptown like evryone else watching. People forget how hated as a mayor he was in NYC beofre then and how there were complaints of NYC becoming a police state like Big Brother. Imagine what he'd do with that power in a post-9/11 US as President!
With Edwards and Gore I think there is the charisma factor being lost. I do think Gore has good international skills and when he and Clinton were in the whitehouse the economy was great though I realize presidents don't have as much impact in this arena as people think. McCain to me is too soft and seems too weak to be a preseident, especially in the current world and its apparently increasing destabilization/hostilities abroad.
Newt and Clinton are pure politicians and flipflop depending on the breeze - I wouldn't trust either one. Mitt Romney sounds religiously motivated to an extent but also fake. I can't trust any candidate that doesnt believe in evolution.
Damn, can't we resurrect Nixon? I mean he did fib a bit but he was actually a very effective president in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Jun 12, 2007 9:33:33 GMT -5
Aha. A refined poll. Thanks dapper;)
I will vote for the Libertarian nominee, as I gave up on the 2 majors after the Gore-Bush-Florida fiasco.
They most closely resemble my beliefs....not perfectly, but close. Some have a particular agenda (read "legalize it") and that is ALL they care about, but the overall concepts are ok. Dreamy and perhaps unrealistic, but better than the 2 major parties that TALK different but ACT the same.
|
|
|
Post by dapper on Jun 12, 2007 9:57:47 GMT -5
In looking at the Republicans, I can easily not consider McCain since he sides with Democrats all the time (campaign finance bill helps democrats; he's pro-illegal alien amnesty), but moreover since he doesn't have a shot at getting the nomination anyway. Fred Thompson has the conservatives excited, which means I'm intrigued but would like to see him display why exactly they're excited after he officially gets in the race. Rudy I like. I don't agree with his apparent social liberalness, but I don't necessarily care about it either. In contrast to cs's viewpoint, I think he gets a great deal of valid credit for cleaning up NYC and dismantling organized crime. And I find him approachable and capable of explaining things like the War on Terror better than absentee Bush does, which is a big reason his ratings are in Carterville. And then there's Mitt Romney. I like him too. I know the others are trying to make him come off as a flipflopper, but honestly the only thing they point to is once again social issues, which I care little about, as I think they are are secondary, at best, matters that are merely symbolic positions presidents must pay lip service to. Namely, he for a time was pro-abortion after someone he knew died from having a back-alley one or something, but now he's pro-life....but more importantly than this change, he aptly points out that Reagan changed his mind on this too, which probably means both men were being politically expedient to attain their seats in California & New Hampshire respectively. The primary thing I like about Mitt is his business record. Unlike Bush, who, despite his business failures, trumpeted his business background and Harvard MBA, Romney's business background consists of taking failing companies and turning them into thriving entities. In short, cutting out the fat, the dead weight, honing their focus, and streamlining operations to achieve a much better efficient practice. Our government currently is bigger and more wasteful than ever and would benefit greatly from a reformist whose career is about improving efficiency. Religion doesn't matter to me for anyone else, so I wouldn't make it matter for a mormon either. Romney also is looking like he's having a good time with all this. And he's a good looking guy, let's not overlook. And even if Newt ran, and I like him a lot, he'd never get elected, so my analysis of him ends there. So currently, of the Republicans--and I am a registered Republican who has voted for an independent but never a Democrat--I have to say that the three who I will pick from would be Rudy, Romney and Thompson, barring any darkhorse coming from someplace (I'm thinking Colin Powell since I'd like to see a Powell Presidency, and I do think he would really be a strong VP in the very least).
I'll be back later to breakdown the democrats to levels beyond scientific later.
|
|
|
Post by Freecia on Jun 12, 2007 10:05:29 GMT -5
Guiliani is alot of hype in my book. He just happened to be downtown when the WTC got hit and told some people to come with him. Otherwise he would have been uptown like evryone else watching. People forget how hated as a mayor he was in NYC beofre then and how there were complaints of NYC becoming a police state like Big Brother. Imagine what he'd do with that power in a post-9/11 US as President! I'd rather like to think this is the very essense of U.S., to put it in a GOOD and BAD way. This is the very definition of being a hero, is it not? Heros are not perfect, but they try their best to protect the weak, no? I'd like to believe this is the spirit of Americans even though there are a lot of other Americans who kinda spoil this kind of spirit. I guess I think this way because of my political position (Taiwan is a touchy subject when it comes to relations with China) and a country like Taiwan would probably appreciate every bit of help that U.S. offers if or when the time comes for China to "taking back" Taiwan, which oddly enough, never belonged to China. Having said that, I actually don't know much about politics, but I do know back in college we read articles "attacking" Guiliani for the impound ordinance and I rather liked him. He was also responsible for literally cleaning up NYC was he not? I'd rather have him, someone with some balls to handle tough situations than someone like Hilary.
|
|
|
Post by sass in a glass on Jun 12, 2007 10:16:35 GMT -5
With the way Bush is handling some of the issues concerning most folks in the States he's gonna ruin the chance of a Republican being elected. Didn't even help with those two border patrol men who are in jail for doing their job. No kudos for Bush. Giuliani I'm not too sure about. He says he's against abortion but he's for the woman's right to abort, blah blah blah. Doesn't mention anything about borders and what not. I think he's a liberal wearing republican cloak. No offence to those out there. If it comes down to him or Hilary then I'd have no choice but to vote for Giuliani. McCain needs to get back into his conservative roots, and then we'll see.
|
|
0
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by 0 on Jun 12, 2007 11:00:07 GMT -5
@ Freecia - my concern with Guiliani is we already have concerns about civl liberties losing ground with homeland security/Patriot Act wiretaps etc and people claimed He used Gestapo tactics in NYC as a mere mayor. I just don't want too much unchecked power in any candidate.
Likewise regarding 9/11 - I live across from it, literally watched it and went through it , and while he was highly visible there wasn't anything he really did except appear to care, which is what any mayor or any genuine human being would have done. Not to take away from him but I also think people give him and Bush this aura of awe like they were really taking some sort of action or achieving something after it happened.
|
|
|
Post by dapper on Jun 12, 2007 11:11:55 GMT -5
Bush is a liberal in a Republican cloak. Government now is bigger than ever. Pro illegal alien amnesty. Created a whole new bureaucracy. Hangs with Bono for christ's sake.
---
But really, more damning than Bush for the Republicans, is the prospect that if the Dems can't win in 08, despite his unpopularity, when can they win?
|
|
0
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by 0 on Jun 12, 2007 11:28:46 GMT -5
Bush is a liberal in a Republican cloak. Government now is bigger than ever. Pro illegal alien amnesty. Created a whole new bureaucracy. Hangs with Bono for christ's sake. --- But really, more damning than Bush for the Republicans, is the prospect that if the Dems can't win in 08, despite his unpopularity, when can they win? Come on third party! Like that will ever happen
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Jun 12, 2007 11:59:19 GMT -5
Sadly, the third party option is doomed to failure. Politicains love power, and the 2 party system keeps them in business. They TALK one way but ACT the same. The Elephants say they want to make the government smaller and decrease taxes....lies. GWB has seen the largest increase in gov't size since FDR. Taxes? Meh. A pittance. Whilst defecit spending like a college kid with a new credit card. Thanks, but no thanks.
And don't even get me started on the donkeys. Jackasses. Tax and spend. Tax and spend. And for what? A myriad social programs that require more money a generation later to fix? Pass. They have never FIXED anything. Only created more problems. Hell, has the government ever run ANYTHING efficiently? See your local DMV, post office, or VA medical center for all the evidence you need.
I quit them. So I throw away my vote, but at least I am not gonna have to vote for the "lesser of two evils" anymore.
|
|
|
Post by dapper on Jun 12, 2007 12:08:01 GMT -5
^ This is exactly why I think there is this excitment brewing over Fred Thompson--people are trying to make a Reagan comparison here, which of course is what I like and I look for. I haven't seen him enough to know how off that comparison is, but I do sense a disdain for waste in Romney, so I'm thinking he might be good at ridding of some of the bloated bureaucracy, while each of the democrats have advocated already to increase it, and all our taxes, even though with lower taxes government tax revenue has increased, once again, to record levels.
|
|
|
Post by chinesejewfool on Jun 12, 2007 12:50:05 GMT -5
Huckabee makes a lot of sense. He'll never win though.
The rest of the republicans are idiots.
Guliani by many accounts failed to make anti-terrorism an initiative in New York. And still seems to support this failed Iraq war. McCain is still gung ho about it too.
GOP has no chance this coming election, because common people are sick of this war. Only f***tards support the war.
|
|
|
Post by dapper on Jun 12, 2007 13:56:37 GMT -5
^Fuzzy math won't get you into Cal, sport!
Polls show Rudy beats Hillary, who runs circles around all the Dems.
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Jun 12, 2007 13:59:22 GMT -5
I thought of another option I like.
Gridlock.
Give me a President that cancels out the Congress.
The less those bozos do, the better.
So I guess I would then have to pull for a Republican that totally disagrees with Congress. Doin' nothin' would be better than what we have been doin' lately.
|
|
|
Post by dapper on Jun 12, 2007 14:12:30 GMT -5
Hell yeah. I love gridlock. It's a great check on government the whole.
It's when the two parties agree on something--like this motherplucking illegal alien amnesty bill that they're trying to ram down our throats as "immigration reform" as they decry its critics as anti-immigration and hostile to immigrants, as they try to make aliens and immigrants one--that we know we're all screwed.
|
|