My number one issue is illegal immigration and I want a candidate who will first secure the borders, immediately cut off hand outs and social program benefits to illegal aliens and then begin mass deportation. Abolish NAFTA, and put a stop to the NAU and the Superhighway. If we don't do this we won't have to worry about social security, the war on terror, the costs of health care, crime, because we will no longer have a country. That being said Tancredo is my first choice he has an unwavering stand against illegal immigration.
2007-10-21 22:55:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
To be honnest it really depends on what you value. I will make it short. If you are a person who is fair and cares about your fellow man and justice and really value our constitution.....and first and foremost believe that our country should be run by people who actually represent the "majority" of americans. Or maybe you really believe that government is best run by people who represent the few rich and powerful and that those few elite really know best what is good for the rest of the country...and laws are only there to make sure the rich keep getting their way, while making sure as many roadblocks are in place to prevent the rest from getting ahead. Now that is the ideological difference. In fact its not all that clear, because in my opionion both parties actually represent the latter viewpoint to some point, although one does it more than the other. As to which candidate, I would say that all the candidates of one party believe the latter, while most of the candidates of another believe the latter. Only a couple of the candidates of one party come close to representing the former.
2007-10-21 21:07:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by ez f 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
There is no such thing as the best candidate for President without reference to biases. Most of the candidates running could do the job. However, they each would have different priorities and different approaches to the various issues.
Which one of them I think is best is a matter of personal policy preferences and what approach I think will work best -- both in terms of getting the policy implemented and in terms of the policy that would be most successful. In other words, my biases.
If you are a social conservative and think that "family values" are most important, I think that Huckabee is your candidate.
If you are a neo-conservative and want to abandon the culture war, Rudy Giuliani is probably your candidate.
If you are a neo-conservative but also think family values are important, you probably want Thompson or Romney.
If you are a neo-conservative but oppose an imperial Presidency and want more honesty in government, McCain is probably your candidate.
If you think the war was a mistake and want a President with foreign policy experience, you probably would like Richardson, Biden, or Dodd.
If you want a slightly left of center but still fiscally conservative policy like we had in the 1990s, you probably would like Clinton.
If you want progressive policies that return some of the tax burden to upper incomes while reducing the tax burden on the middle class, you probably want Edwards or Obama.
2007-10-21 21:20:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by Tmess2 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's impossible to suggest someone to vote for without being biased. Obviously if I support a candidate I am biased for that candidate.
I would vote for... Giuliani or McCain, or Romney because I agree with almost everything they suggest.
2007-10-21 21:02:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by Captain 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
Certainly not a Republicrat... the republicans and Democrats have made us hated in the world, invited attack, dependent on China for funds and Mexico for labor and work against us every day
2007-10-21 21:02:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
When a 4x nobel peace prize nominee is running for President and 75% of people's main concern is getting the US out of war, why would people look to junior senators (Hillary, Obama, and Edwards) when Nobel Peace Nominee Governor Richardson wants to get the US out of Iraq and has the Presidential qualifications to do it- very popular state Governor, US Energy Secretary when we had inexpensive gas, US Ambassador to the United Nations, and US Congressman for 15 years.
Governor Richardson has been nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the release of hostages, American servicemen and political prisoners in North Korea, Iraq, and Cuba. Governor Richardson recently negotiated a 60-day cease fire in war-torn Darfur following direct talks with rebel leaders and the President of Sudan. Bonus Richardson has experience with the leaders in the regions of most concern.
Stop buying into who the corportists want you to vote for President and look into the most qualified candidates like Congressman, Secretary, Ambassador, and now Governor - Bill Richardson. The most qualified candidate and a candidate that has a proven track record of executive experience and peace experience.
Like the current Republican Administration for corporatations, Hillary wants to be our highest "public" servant but doesn't want to reveil where she would lead our country. Already seeming deceptive like the Bush/Cheney profitering Administration. She is leading financially because she's already sold working class out to big business. Don't let who is in the lead financially mislead you. She has already been bought out by psychopathicly careless organizations like her former Arkansas Walmart. She served SIX YEARS on the board of directors of Wal-Mart Corporation. She may have earned a Grammy for “It Takes a Village to Raise a Child.” But it takes a Governor’s wife to provide cover for Wal-Mart’s profiteering off systematic wage-enslavement of children in its factories in South America.
Sam Walton called Hillary, “My little lady.” Sam paid her an eyebrow raising sum for a director - equal to 60% of her entire not-insubstantial salary as a lawyer. By contrast, Wendy Diaz (her real name), a 13-year-old in Honduras, was paid 25 cents an hour to make shirts for the “little lady’s” label.
Hillary’s rake-in was made possible by Wal-Mart’s 100% union-free operation and out-sourcing of 100% of its manufacturing, some to prison factories in China. Now, you could say that Hillary couldn’t hear the screams of the kiddies in Kamp Wal-Mart in Honduras. After all, she relied on the intelligence provided her by the President (of Wal-Mart).
So if you want to work for walmart or halliburton, vote republican or hillary.
2007-10-21 21:03:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by Mike 4
·
1⤊
2⤋