English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I'm curious. I know that many of us have our favorite party and favorite cadidate. But, let's pretend that the unthinkable happens and your party loses the election. Who on the other side (even if they aren't running) would you be comfortable with?

Some examples:

A republican named Sally might say that Obama and Hillary make her uncomfortable, but that Al Gore would be ok with her.

A democrat named Jake might say that Romney and McCain make him uncomfortable, but Guliani would be ok with him.

(And if your answer is "none" then don't bother answering this question and I'd recommend keeping a more open mind in the future.)

Please no ad hominem, partisan attacks or generalizations. Thanks.

2007-03-01 16:16:16 · 13 answers · asked by The_Music_Man 3 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

Thanks everyone for your frank answers.

Chase, I've never heard of Dave Freudenthal, but I'll look him up now. A conservative democrat? Interesting.

2007-03-01 16:25:31 · update #1

CJ

You're right, you did give a "none" answer.

1. The U.S. does not practice imperialism. Imperialism is the conquest/use of force to enrich the aggressor nation. We do the opposite. We've spent billions on the Iraq and Afghan wars to build new governments, not conquor. We also send out billions in aid every year. That's not using other countries to enrich us, that's enriching other countries.

2. I did not limit you to the candidates listed in the examples in my post. If you could please look at the first word of the title of the question. The word is "anybody". In this case, "anybody" means "anybody".

The entire point of those two examples was to avoid confusion. Apparently I failed.

3. I encourage you to try again. I'm still interested in your opinion. If you'd like, you can edit your post to insert a name you might be comfortable with.

2007-03-01 16:44:51 · update #2

13 answers

Er...If Senator Lieberman can keep is mitts off the second amendment, I can probably - possibly -- maybe -- put up with him, especially if I don't have to listen to him speak. Zell Miller would be ok.

Wait! I just remembered -- I would actually vote for Richard Friedman (D-TX). I trust him on the second amendment; he has a great sense of humour (a little Kinky, I know), and he knows the constitutional duties of the executive branch of the government. All I have to do is ignore the issues I disagree with him on....come to think of it, he's probably better than most of the Republicans who are running...

Hey, this was a good question. Even though he's not a candidate, at least now when someone asks me who I'd like to vote for I will have an answer.

2007-03-01 16:33:18 · answer #1 · answered by mourning my dad 3 · 2 2

surely I surely have some super interactions with a number of different ideology. the key's that whilst we would possibly not agree on the subject concerns we do appreciate the main appropriate of the different to hold and voice their own opinion. it is somewhat the undertaking with Yahoo solutions regularly however. there is not any point of sustained elementary mutual appreciate. the wonderful direction is in basic terms to state your critiques and enable the chips fall the place they might. people who're close minded at the instant are not well worth dropping time on because of the fact no rely how persuasive or actual your argument they won't pay attention besides. even however people who're extra open minded will work together in provide and take discourse with you. interior the tip you will possibly not discover undemanding floor reckoning on the undertaking, yet you are able to advance some civilized kin and often discover very inspiring debate.

2016-10-17 01:58:26 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

You might consider this a "none" answer, or a generalization, but the fact of the matter is that all of the candidates you mention above are very much alike.

ALL of these candidates continue to support U.S. imperalism, i.e., the military industrial complex. As such they put us all at risk. Most people don't have a clue just *how* important foreign policy is, what it is and has been for a very long time, and why it's critical that we change it. Our foreign policy over just the last 8 years has been shocking, and future generations will pay the price unless we change course and do so IMMEDIATELY.

More importantly Americans don't seem to know how much of their tax dollar goes to pay for militarism - at the expense of funding some critically important programs right here at home like SECURITY (defense) education, health care, infrastructure, environmental control, just to name a few things. Worse, OUR MAIN export is weaponry. That's right folks: The United States' #1 export is weapons of mass destruction.

Remember that the next time one of these candidates uses fear as a weapon by invoking "9/11" or some other boogie-man. Or when they talk about the war on terror! LOL. But don't expect any of these GENERIC candidates to tell you the truth - you need to do your own homework AND THEN VOTE THIRD PARTY!

(sheesh, we don't even have TWO parties!)

2007-03-01 16:35:56 · answer #3 · answered by CJ 2 · 0 4

The only one I'd be comfortable with is Rudy Guiliani. He does reflect a lot of my own beliefs. I won't go into detail but for example he's tough on crime and gangs but a social liberal. I'm not really on either side of the aisle as an Independent, but lately I've become convinced I may never vote Republican again, so the question fit me regardless.

2007-03-01 17:46:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Compared to Bush I would be much more comfortable with any of the candidates. Making me the most nervous, if I were so would be Mitt Romney or Giuliani. On the other side Kusinich makes me nervous. I feel the most comfortable with Edwards or Gore, if he should run. Richardson okay too. I could live with the rest but would wait and see what happens.

2007-03-01 16:29:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Out of the top three on the left side of the aisle I would be most comfortable with Lieberman. Hillary is a divider and Obama is really unknown. I think Lieberman would at least try to work with both sides.

2007-03-01 16:25:14 · answer #6 · answered by meathookcook 6 · 3 2

I am a Republican, but I would have to say Dave Freudenthal (spelling?) who is a Democrat, but is also conservative. He has also done a great job with Wyoming and being a leader.

2007-03-01 16:21:45 · answer #7 · answered by Chase 5 · 3 1

I'm not a Republican, but I would consider voting for Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

2007-03-01 16:33:26 · answer #8 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 3 1

Zell Miller

2007-03-01 16:22:30 · answer #9 · answered by scruffycat 7 · 3 3

I really don't mind McCain that much... I don't agree with all his issues... but frankly, I think he has a brain... which is a plus...

I think anyone (almost) would be a great improvement overall...

I'm trying to stick with those who have a "snowball's chance"... unlike Republicans... zell miller?

2007-03-01 16:23:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers