How do you feel about the presidential candidates? Please feel free to come by my 360 blog (Opinions) and vote.
2007-10-01 17:26:17 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Despite the fact that some candidates have some good qualifications they have to sell themselves to the public. In doing so they end up making promises that they can not keep and some things that they can not do. Example: Presidents can not make laws, Congress can make laws, the President can only pass or veto it. By making statements that they will do certain things that are out of the domain of the Office they imply either the general public is very stupid or that they can lie and get away with it.
I have over the years come to believe that the world is really run by Private business and the government simply is in place to keep a reign on the economics so it does not get too far out of hand. Regrettably the Fed is mostly Reactive to conditions and not Proactive, with a few exceptions.
Still I feel the 3 key runner on each side at this time are the safest bets for the American public and safety.
2007-10-01 17:43:34 · answer #1 · answered by Carl P 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both the same warmongering disaster waiting to happen, though Hillary is almost certainly the nominee.
John Edwards is easily the worst of an awful group of Democrats, as he wants to bring back the Draft and has a Utopian scheme to end poverty (somebody needs to tell him to learn economics).
Bill Richardson is probably the best of the top 4 Democrats, but he is so far down that he is irrelevent and he was made more moderate (meaning that he doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment as flagrantly as other Democrats and he isn't as economically ignorant) by his state (New Mexico's previous governor was one of the few politicians who ever truly did anything to prevent government largesse).
Joe Biden and Chris Dodd are pro-censorship, pro-war, anti-economic freedom extremists. Dodd has even announced a plan to bring back the draft.
Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are better than the other Democrats, but they support the warmongering "Save Darfur Coalition." Kucinich is a hippie (and therefore completely clueless on economics), but Gravel seems to be the most economically literate Democrat, though he is willing to support high gas prices to go after the phantom Global Warming.
On the Republican side, most of the candidates are awful as well.
Giuliani is a fascist mobster who turned NYC into a police state and created the perfectly-named NYPD Street Crimes unit to terrorize the people of NYC through committing Street Crimes. He is also advised by one of the former Trotskyite Communists that are called the Neo-Conservatives, even though there is nothing Conservative about them.
McCain is a bankrupt welfare queen who supports open borders, war against everybody, and the 1st Amendment violations known as "Campaign Finance" laws.
Romney is a flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal reminiscent of Dukakis and Kerry.
Fred Thompson is a trial lawyer (as is Edwards), a former lobbyist for the abortion industry, and was so instrumental in the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold that it should have been called McCain-Feingold-Thompson.
Mike Huckabee is a pathological tax-increaser and a childhood friend of Bill Clinton. He supports the entire Christian Right agenda, including the part about restarting the Crusades and the parts about violating the 1st Amendment. Sam Brownback is just a Catholic version of Huckabee. Alan Keyes is also a religious extremist himself.
Duncan Hunter is a warmonger and a protectionist. The last thing we need in the White House is a guy crazy enough to start an economic war with the Chinese. Tom Tancredo wants to nuke half the Middle East, which makes him clearly unfit to be president (we don't need a president who wants to use nukes).
Out of the candidates, the only candidate who is fit to be president is the Republican from Texas, Ron Paul. He is against the War, against raising taxes, against the IRS and the Fed, against the UN, against the Patriot Act, against the ridiculous and racist Drug War, and for the Constitution.
2007-10-01 20:05:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
The ones that stand apart from the farce are Kucinich, Paul and Gravel. However, because they are against some heavy weights that have ties with the media their reformimg ideas are being surpressed.
This shouldn't stop anyone for voting for either one of them if desired.
Just as important will be the accuracy of the votes tallied as the public has a hard time probing into this kind of deception.
2007-10-01 18:03:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Most of them are so politically correct that they make me sick. A few are honest. On the Democrat side, Kucinich and Gravel are refreshing in their candor. On the Republican side, Tancredo speaks his mind, albeit no as articulate as I
would like. Ron Paul comes across as the most sincere and
I agree with more of his issues than any of the others. The so-called top tier candidates are windbags in empty suits.
2007-10-01 17:52:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The people we need in these critical positions won't run, because people like Bill Clinton have made a mockery of the office!!! So, we end up with the rabble, and ner do wells who can't get a real job, so they go into politics for the benifits, contacts, and security!!
2007-10-01 17:31:30 · answer #5 · answered by Paully S 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ron Paul is the one to vote for. Go to his website if you haven't been there yet, to see where he stands.
2007-10-02 01:50:35 · answer #6 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Rather low.
2007-10-01 17:34:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
no matter who wins we are screwed
2007-10-01 17:28:32 · answer #8 · answered by jaws65 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋