We don't need Rodham or Giuliani and with good reason, they are blatantly blood suckers and low lifes. Why are we not marking this as high stakes and looking at the real candidates that are truly qualified? Why is a joke? And my goodness, for some it is racial.
2007-09-27 15:59:27 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
We have a real dilema in the United States. We cannot survive another Republican president, and the Democrats don't have anyone running who is any better. Hillary would be another bush in democrat clothing. Giuliani would "give away the farm". Obama might be the most ethical of the group, but he doesn't have the political weight to get his agenda's passed. Where is Truman when we need him!
2007-09-27 16:04:57 · answer #1 · answered by grumpy 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well it's just an example of how stupid the electorate has become. Personally I couldn't vote for any dem because I know my taxes will double. They did under Clintoon and will under another dem President. The war on terror is not an issue because of this reasoning. Be it a dem of Republican they both will have to face the problem. Dem's are bashing Bush for no good reason except the fact it gets their lib base teething. Independents will decide this next election. Both party's have to face terror. So decide if you want your taxes raised or not. That's the real issue that people should be worried about..
2007-09-27 16:09:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
This distract voters from voting:
There are no longer any voter-qualification impediments to democracy in the United States. But many have noted that the will of the people has tended not to prevail, and that a majority of people eligible to vote are so discouraged that they do not vote. The main reason for this is the buying and selling of elections and politicians by the wealthier class of citizens and their special interest groups. A year or more before elections take place, the winner is decided by those who vote with dollars. But this is a defect in democracy, not a reason to abandon it. The answer is to cure the defect, not to attempt to destroy our representative democracy.
February 19, 2002
Please circulate freely. William P. Meyers can be reached at bill@williampmeyers.org
http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.h...
2007-09-27 16:09:12 · answer #3 · answered by Twilight 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I like Romney and Thomson (Favorite son thing there being from Tenn), but I really like listening to Mike Huckabee. I think Mike would be a great President but I don't think he has a chance. Romney is a businessman so I am not sure Washington will accept most of his solutions since he will try and run it like a business. Thompson is an actor and he can bullshit with the best of them. I think Thompson will probably get the nomination,but I wouldn't mind Guliani. Personally Gulinai represents my beliefs closer than most of the candidates. Socially liberal with strong national defense.
2007-09-27 16:08:02 · answer #4 · answered by WCSteel 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I disagree, I think everyone cares about this next election. Like 2000 and 2004, we will be on the edge of our seats.
2007-09-27 18:33:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What are you referring too????...why do think they have all these people logging on to this web site 24-7, just to show how they care, why they care, and whom they care for to express how much they care about the WHITE HOUSE!!!! Get a clue will you!!! or just SHUT up cause, ya don't make sense.
2007-09-27 21:38:00 · answer #6 · answered by Liza 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
you say all the names you are against....grow up and tell us two things:
1> who are you FOR, and
2> WHY ???
2007-09-27 16:07:36 · answer #7 · answered by Mike 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋