This is a racist question ...
2007-05-13 04:25:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by ~ShUdDhAtA UnLiMiTeD~ 3
·
6⤊
1⤋
Is that how you define best candidate, a female, a black man, a Latino? Try something different, instead of voting based on race or gender, vote for the best candidate. And why would you assume there is only one line of thinking between ten white guys? Rudy, pro choice, Ron Paul, a Libertarian who opposed the war, wants to get rid of the federal reserve bank, and the IRS, in favor of fairtax. And the democrats disagree with each other how? Put the democrats together and it sounds like an echo. Sounds like the same line of thought.
2007-05-13 12:02:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by robling_dwrdesign 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
the Democrats and Republicans aren't offering anything. These people are offering to serve. There is a very important difference there. Most people cannot or will not take the time to devote any part of their life to public service. Most people barely take the time to vote, and many don't do even that. The Democrats and Republicans take what they can get, and then the news media puts them through a grueling vetting process, as does the public, to see who is the least unworthy. The fact that the Democrats who are offering their services, are a more diverse group may be telling. But always remember that it is the candidate that is offering their services, not the other way around.
2007-05-13 11:31:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by MUDD 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
The Republicans had a black man as Secretary of State, who would have made a great president, but he decided not to run ( Colin Powell ), and have a current Secretary of State Condeleza Rice, who chooses not to run. The Republicans have great minortiy leadership (the jury is still out on Alberto Gonzales), but it is their own personal decision whether or not to run for President.
I don't think the race of the President really matters, as long as he or she is the right person for the job. It's actually Congress that has the greatest effect on our everyday lives because they make the laws we all live by.
2007-05-13 11:33:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by Lele44 5
·
4⤊
1⤋
Republicans are offering candidates that do not have to rely on the divisive politics of racial identity to gather support. The asker of this question is highlighting why Democrats cannot be trusted. They point to skin color instead of character. Martin Luther king Junior would be a Republican today, and if he served in Bush's cabinet Democrats would hate him liek they now hate Clarence Thomas.
Democrats use minorities and keep them on the reservation by reminding them of their skin color every chance they get.
2007-05-13 11:36:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Well, what does the descent of them matter if they care for the country? The republicans seem to try and stick to bloodlines, like a monarchy, and we all know that monarchs don't always care about what's best for a country. Look at the Bush's, they both had the same NWO agenda to follow (not that the Clintons are against the NWO), regardless of how it damages freedoms and rights of the masses.
Islam delenda est - Yeah, but do they make the decisions, or do they just follow orders blindly? They say one thing out of line and they're gone!
2007-05-13 11:27:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋
I don't care - if Hillary runs I will vote for the Rep and I don't care if the candidate were Black, White, Latino, Male, Female, Muslim, Mormon - whatever. If Hillary doesn't run I won't vote cause I really don't care.
2007-05-13 11:27:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by Moondog 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
Why do Libs see only color except when they look at Bush's cabinet. Clinton Had zero minorities unless you count Sasquatch Reno.
Qualification to run the country is not in the color of skin or the testicle or lack thereof.
2007-05-13 11:33:38
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 2
·
4⤊
0⤋
Fred Thompson '08!
Let's see:
1) Barak Obama--incredibly inexperienced; only on the list because he IS black, not because of his qualifications.
2) Hillary Clinton--her negatives are so high that they themselves almost render her unelectable; socialist; power-hungry, grasping
3) John Edwards--ambulance chaser who likes to lie and say that he comes from the "working class"
4) Joe "Plugs" Biden--plagiarist [see Wikipedia for proof]; says silly things
5) Dennis Kucinich--genuine nutball
6-10) Such outstanding candidates that I can't remember who they are
A) Potential candidate: Al Gore--Hoodwinker making himself a bundle off of carbon credits; wannabe
B)Potential candidate: Wanker JOhn KErry who got all of his money by marrying it TWICE. Author of a copycat book on the environment. Silly loser.
2007-05-13 11:53:25
·
answer #9
·
answered by Delray 3
·
3⤊
1⤋
Are you saying "the line of thinking" offered by the democratic hopefuls are the best thing for our country? These people are out of their minds.
2007-05-13 11:30:51
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mr. Niceguy 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
I am not sure what you are getting at here. Why not look at it from the stand point that each party is trying to put their best people in the running. Don't try to make this something that it isn't.
2007-05-13 11:36:54
·
answer #11
·
answered by nana4dakids 7
·
4⤊
0⤋