But, don't you think country could benefit an extra advantage by having an Ex. in the white house?
We don't need to be sentimental and mawkish over this!
PS. I'm not Democrat. Just seeking truth.
2007-08-02 11:52:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
That's the way they do it in Mexico. The richest families back the candidates and then go back to ripping off the people. It works so well, 12-20 million Mexicans have come here to live.
If Hilary wins that's 24-28 years after she's done. Then I guess it'll be time for Jeb Bush to run so that'll get us up to 32-36 years. By then, Chelsea and the Bush girls can run. And with the powers the executive branch has amassed over the last 16 years, we could see our first king/dictator for life someday.
2007-08-02 11:58:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by Deep Thought 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
The entire political process is controlled by a few families and corporations. The Media now has control of the news and edits it in favor of those who will let them abuse us. Both parties should purge the old cronies and let the young people with fresh ideas start running this country. Term limits could be a big help in ridding us of the corrupt system we now have but it may be too late already.
2007-08-02 11:48:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by mr conservative 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
A vote for Hillary just ensures another four years of a nastily divided electorate. She has every right to run, but we certainly do not have to vote for her. I am with you, but I will take it a step further. We not only need new blood, but we also need someone who can soothe the heated passions of the people in general. In short, it is time for the country to start healing. We will not get that with Hillary.
2007-08-02 11:52:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by Bryan 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
No way!!!! Hillary Clinton is crazy for running on the platform of "change."
I personally want someone who is going to turn Washington on its head and make politicians accountable for their actions. Transparency in government is important, and having more of the same with Clinton is not the answer
I'm for Obama.
2007-08-02 11:49:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by genmalia 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
good point. i don't like how hillary has suggested using bill as an ambassador or otherwise consulting him on important issues, myself. how can someone as egotistical and conceited as bill clinton possibly take a back seat? i think he'd end up doing the VP's job. meanwhile, the real VP is merely paying lipservice to the title and has no real say. i mean, let's face it, btwn her husband and (insert VP here), who is she going to listen to and side with? bill was a great president but his term is over
2007-08-02 12:07:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by izaboe 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
those 2 families are appropriate. while the Roman empire broke up, it chop up into ten potential entities. effectual families have tried to intermarry and ask your self political,commercial, and commercial empires. They rule a good number of the worldwide with their wealth and potential. yet their time is drawing to an intensive. that's mentined in Daniel financial ruin 2 and Psalms financial ruin 2 interior the bible. They underestimate God, blaspheme Him, and have sought to alter the regulation and the circumstances. They manage the plenty with deceipt and innovations administration approaches. case in point, the Federal Reserve financial enterprise isn't a central authority run employer. that's owned by ability of those worldwide bankers,which borrow funds to governments likethe united states to finance wars like we are at the instant engaged in Iraq. This should be paid back with activity. so as that they set up for politics to alter events and put in the tax team who will improve taxes to insure their loans are paid. They sap the potential of unfastened human beings. that's pronounced if our government bought in basic terms a million% of it somewhat is sources everybody would desire to retire a millionaire. and a good number of human beings are already multimillionaires. the dominion's of this worldwide will ultimately be reclaimed by ability of Jesus while he returns. he will advantages people who've been truthful with what He has entrusted to them, by ability of giving them extra to be responsible with. yet to those that've misused their duties punishment would be admiistered. earlier our u . s . a . replaced into primary the human beings unquestionably relied on God for His preparation,secure practices,and provision. as quickly as political entities are formed their is an inclination in the direction of corruption. there is not any such element as separation of church and state. this is the comparable as separation of God and guy. that's no longer the plan. this is sin. As my internet site call states,'JesusIsTheAnswer'
2016-10-01 07:00:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by devoti 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree.
I would like to see her not even make it through the primaries.
I think we need someone in office who hasn't been a politician long, so they still remember who they are working for.
If she does, it will probably come down to another vote between the lesser evil.
2007-08-02 11:55:04
·
answer #8
·
answered by avail_skillz 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Hey, I didnt vote for the people in control for 12 of them. Not my problem.
2007-08-02 11:48:58
·
answer #9
·
answered by Toodeemo 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
We could have had Mr. Gore or Mr. Kerry if the Bush cheating brigade hadn't sabotaged the elections.
... both times......
.
2007-08-02 11:55:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by ♪ Pamela ♫ 7
·
2⤊
0⤋