Which is worse for the US: another radical Neocon GOP President or a radical socialists Dem President?

Question

And if your only choice is a radical what is the point of even voting?

Answer 1

They are equally as bad. They are loyal to each other to boot.

We as a nation will wake up soon to find that our country is gone.

Answer 2

Hey you're talking sense now! - Now do you see why real conservatives want less government?

I think they are both so similar that it comes down to which is the lesser of the two evils.

So which is worse would be whichever is the greater evil which to me would be the radical socialist Dem because even though it's the same agenda the radical Dem is in a far greater hurry about it.

Answer 3

Radicals should always be avoided; the current President of the United States is a good example of why this should be the case.

As a citizen and resident of Canada who enjoys watching American politics, I can tell you that none of the current contenders for the presidency are even remotely close to being socialists. Even the most left-wing American candidate running is well to the right of what most Canadians are comfortable with. When used by an American, the term "socialist" really means "I don't like this guy and I suspect that he eats kittens for breakfast."

Seriously, before you guys run around calling each other socialists, you should learn what socialism is really about.

Answer 4

another radical Neocon GOP President is not possible. We have never had one. Our current President is not even a conservative. If I could find a Radical Conservative candidate, I would ask George Washington where he spent the last 200 years.

Answer 5

Given that none of the Dem candidates could seriously be described as radical socialists this really is just being silly.

Answer 6

Um, no. Neocons are fiscal liberals with a particular aggressive militaristic foreign policy. We thought that was what you wanted when you elected President Bush the SECOND time for real!

Answer 7

Radical neocon?????? Bush has nearly doubled entitlement spending and created whole new entitlements, and tried to give amnesty to 20 million illegal immigrants. And he gave $40 BN of taxpayer dollars to "fight AIDS" in Africa.

That hardly qualifies as conservative....

Answer 8

Either one will suck. Unfortunately our country is so divided right now that I don't see how anything other than one of the two will keep from being elected. I see civil war as a real prospect in the not too distant future because of it.

Answer 9

I can't imagine what chemical is being pumped into the air to make anyone think that a single Democratic presidential candidate is a socialist. They are barely liberal, most are moderate. Hillary is a centrist; believe me, universal health-care is not enough to make her a leftist. It is a standard idea around the world (even in conservative democracies) except the United States.

I suppose it might be because most of the Republican candidates, by comparison, are so outrageously to the right.

Answer 10

tell me whats good in any scenario about continuing the clinton..."legacy" through hillary and ill potentially agree with you..until then as far as im concerned there is no real choice but to avoid it.

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Answer 11

The latter. Socialists would stifle free enterprise and redistribute successful citizens' money. Perpetuate the giant teat of giving away everything. Why work hard, hire people when half your proceeds go to the government! When people bad mouth corporations and wealthy people they should ask themselves, "Who hires people? The homeless? Liberals?"