...but who would stick to his/her principles.
Or support somebody whom you agree with for now, but who might change depending on what is the popular thing to say?
Which two candidates fit the above two categories?
2007-08-24 08:48:49 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I would be more inclined to support the candidate that stuck to his or her principles. At least that way you could know what to somewhat expect from them. To some degree however, they must be willing to listen to the people, and take their account into the descion process. But not however, just fall to the whim of every gripe, reason, or special circumstance. Great leaders throughout history have been able to balance this effectively. Too much of one trait however is never good. Ex. hitler, stuck to his principles and lead the country off, and Bush seems to spew anything that will make the people like him, and yet american's today couldn't be more discouraged with our leadership. Better to be firm but with an open mind/conscious/intentions.
2007-08-24 09:17:02 · answer #1 · answered by mykdgirl54 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, it is impossible to find a candidate who you agree with 100%. You can just pick the candidate you feel most in tune with. What are the issues you feel most strongly about, abortion, health care, economy etc? As for sticking to their principles, there is no guarantee of that for anyone. In fact, Prez Bush is technically sticking to his principles regarding the war, but has been under fire for this very reason because he will not change his policy.
I would want a president who has strong principles but is still open-minded enough to change if the situation calls for it.
As for which candidate fits which description, who knows? It is just a popularity contest in the end.
2007-08-24 09:04:33 · answer #2 · answered by aml0017 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with ron paul on 90% of his stances and I am voting for him - Romney says what you might want to hear but doesnt come across as a person who will follow through(he flip-flops more than a fish out of water ) -you look at where giulianis money comes from and you know he wont do the right thing and his foreign policy plans are pretty much like voting for world war III -
2007-08-24 09:03:57 · answer #3 · answered by rooster 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Everyone that thinks for themselves will vote for a candidate that they don't agree on ALL issues. At least I hope so. I have to, or I can't vote. The problem is, a lot of people vote for the party without even checking into the candidate.
2007-08-24 08:59:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
You want someone who agrees with your highest priority issues that generally sticks to their principles as a goal. They should also realize that getting to that goal immediately might not be the highest priority of the moment - i.e. they have to change to fit the times, but still try to move generally in the direction of their most important goals.
2007-08-24 09:11:38 · answer #5 · answered by Bob G 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do support one of those candidates. I support Sen. Clinton but I don't like her stand on immigration. I think she fits the first description.
The second description seems to fit Mitt Romney to a "t." He couldn't be governor of MA unless he was pro-choice so he was pro-choice. He can't be a viable GOP candidate unless he's pro-life, so now he's pro-life.
2007-08-24 09:07:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I would not support a candidate with whom I don't agree. That is why I am not supporting the black dude, Osama, as he doesn't have any good principles. His ideas are pure nonsense, and if he got in he would do too many things that go against the constitution.
He is only running, because he wants the high powered position of the job.
2007-08-24 08:58:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
A. You'll never agree on every issue, unless you're voting for yourself.
2. EVERY politician changes his views to fit popular opinion, ALL OF THEM
2007-08-24 09:00:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
particular, i'm one among individuals who helps him on his rules on the monetary equipment and the warfare on terror and the battles of Iraq and Afghanistan. Immigration rules-truthfully no longer. we could desire to enforce the regulations we've and could have been doing so for some years. What sturdy are regulations in the event that they do no longer seem to be enforced? we could desire to constantly have a customer worker software yet each and all of the illegals here shouldn't earnings from that software. in the event that they basically prefer to alter into criminal, there ought to be an incredibly strict approach they could use that should fee them in time and funds. In different words, they could desire to no longer be rewarded for breaking our regulations and that they could desire to no longer have the skill to get earlier than those that are here legally and making the mandatory attempt and sacrifices to alter into electorate.
2016-11-13 08:16:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
All politicians are bogus!
Do you reeeeeeaaaaally believe that either the "left" or the "right" are either one going to save your ***?
Save yourselves dam*it!!
Let's get rid of ALL of them!
We con't need another lawyer. We need the Doctor!
http://www.RonPaul2008.com
Dr. Ron Paul may be the last chance we have to keep from completely selling out the future of our country.
Look into him. Yes, he's technically a (R), but he's no lawyer!
I'm not extending a fist or a finger your way. I'm offering you my hand in true unity.
blogcharmdawtcawm/nostate
2007-08-24 09:54:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋