are you more willing to support a candidate who offers hope and solutions or one that threatens you with catastrophic consequences for not supporting them?
2006-09-05 16:35:38 · 19 answers · asked by bush-deathgrip 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Why not? The libs have been doing it that way for ever!
2006-09-05 16:37:59 · answer #1 · answered by Delta Charlie 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No, I am not willing to vote for a candidate who threatens me for not supporting them. That's why I will be voting Republican more than likely. I don't think you people offer hope or solutions--just empty promises.
2006-09-05 16:52:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
it is each and all of the GOP has to run on, yet conservatives have plenty extra, and that they do plan to not basically decrease taxes yet to repeal a team of anti corporation law (in the event that they have been rather clever they could repeal all of it going back 200 years to the early 1800's) and loose corporation from the oppressive stifling law that will boost taxes and places Stalinist like rules on the loose industry and creates a "sue your thank you to fulfillment", environment the place legal experts (70% of politicians are legal experts) get wealthy on a similar time as the truthful corporation proprietor is going bankrupt attempting to preserve against a frivolous lawsuit. Conservatives could end all that and bring the country, back to freedom. From the Merriam Webster, online dictionairy; Definition of STATIST : an recommend of statism — statist adjective First regularly occurring Use of STATIST 1946 Rhymes with STATIST modern-day
2016-11-24 23:48:37 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know this is probably a crazy idea, but do you suppose a vote for the GOP in November might possibly represent a vote for who someone thinks is the best candidate?
2006-09-05 16:48:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I haven't heard any Republican candidate threaten catastrophic consequences for not supporting them - though I have heard the conservative rank-and-file go on about it.
I have heard Liberals constantly talking about "loosing our rights" and "America turning into a Fascist state" under Republicans.
2006-09-05 16:41:21 · answer #5 · answered by Will 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I'd rather go with one who is realistic about the threats that face us. I don't need to be painted a rosy picture that does not exist.
BTW
What ever happened to the draft that according to Moveon.org Bush was supposedly going to reinstate in 2005?
Remember the campaign of ’04? Moveon.org was warning the young that if re-elected in 2004 Bush was going to draft anybody male or female between the ages of 18 to 26. Talk about scare tactics. It's been 2 years and still no draft of the young 18-26 year olds.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200410\NAT20041019a.html
2006-09-05 16:41:10 · answer #6 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You nimrod. Both political parties pander to constituencies by inciting fear of the constituencies of the other party. The boogeymen for the Democrats are "corporate America," and "the Christian Right." The Democrats' version of catastrophe is that the rich will get richer and dangerous Christians will force you to live by their backwoods morality.
Nothing makes me sicker than to see you hypocrites claim that you never pander to fear. Nimrod!
2006-09-05 16:43:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I have yet to hear of any "hope and solutions." I would rather vote for a candidate that has a plan other than "our President has made some mistakes, but we don't have a plan to fix them."
2006-09-05 16:58:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Siting inevitable consequences is hardly a threat. What is threatening tho is the thought of not having a Government doing all they can to prevent those who wish us harm from committing those harms.
2006-09-05 16:44:47 · answer #9 · answered by hedddon 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
YOUR democrat crap doesn't work anymore.. You hate the right, and cleave to evil.. You accuse good men and women of bad ,, and you give honor to crooks, liars, murderers, thieves and frauds.. ie: valorie and hubbie comitted nepotism and sedition and treason trying to nail GWB, but no one paid attention to thier lies. So they got a pathetic under secretary in State to make ms.plam's name public, and tried to nail it on Dick.. Valory was a secretary-- not an agent-- and no one was compromised or endangered.. Go back to your sand box and leave the governing to the adults.
2006-09-05 16:46:40 · answer #10 · answered by mr.phattphatt 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, I want to vote according to a broad set of criteria, not just the party's position on national security.
2006-09-05 16:38:20 · answer #11 · answered by timm1776 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋