Which party fits which description in the upcoming primaries?
2007-12-28 03:39:22 · 19 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
In this election, on both sides it will be the one I dislike the least. Sorry, but I don't see a hell of a lot to like. I guess that comes with being a moderate in a world full of liberal and conservative candidates.
2007-12-28 03:44:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
You have made an observation that hits directly on my situation.
My preferences are not represented by any one party or candidate. I am always choosing between the lesser of two evils; I can't imagine what it would feel like to be completely on the same page with any one candidate.
The conservatives have lost their focus on size of govt & have not reduced spending; they have not sealed the borders, have not lived up to their platform. I can't stand the religous right trying to legislate morality......
The democrats are totally corrupt, can not be trusted to protect the coutnry and have allowed socialists and communists to hi-jack their party. A good example of their corruption- dems claim to support civil rights but instead of following Dr King's message to bring people together and heal wounds, they incite racial conflict by exploiting minorities and supporting false leaders, like Jackson and Sharpton.
Overall, liberertarians are the best but a vote to Ron Paul is a vote for sHrillery and there is no way I could support an evil, shameless con artist, like her.
If I support a con, the libs will be agianst anything the person does, good or bad, making him fail (which is their intention- libs want to win or they will destroy the country if they can't control it).
It's not an easy choice but I will vote republican as the lesser of all the evils.
2007-12-28 11:58:38 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the last election (Kerry v. Bush), I had to make that decision - I had to pick the candidate I disliked the least. I wasn't a huge Kerry supporter, but Bush had already proven he was overwhelmed by the job. So I voted for Kerry.
I would rather have the option of choosing the candidate I like most, though.
I think the Republicans have a tougher choice ahead of them this time around than the Dems do. The Dems have three strong candidates, even if we don't agree with every plank in their platform. But I don't see a Republican who is a strong choice for President this election.
2007-12-28 11:45:11 · answer #3 · answered by Amy 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Agreed. It's been a long time since the "Big 2" parties have nominated a candidate I actually thought was worthy of the position. In 2000, I voted 3rd party. In 2004, I wrote in a candidate. Why, in the "land of the free", do we have 2000 choices for breakfast cereal but only 2 to lead the nation?
There are 2 people, one on each side of the aisle, who I would feel comfortable casting my ballot for. They are the 2 most vilified candidates because, heaven forbid, they think outside the box. One probably won't make it past the primary in my state in 2 weeks. The other has the money to stay in it for the long run but his party is rapidly marginalizing him.
And slappyjk, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul. You probably think Nader cost Gore the election, too.
2007-12-28 12:04:42 · answer #4 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Basically which candidate I dislike the least. They all suck. They all have way to many flaws and are beholden to special interest groups. It reminds me of that South Park episode where the kids had to vote for a new mascot. They had a choice between a douche bag and a s h i t sandwich, much like us.
2007-12-28 11:55:30 · answer #5 · answered by Kenneth C 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's always better to be positive and focus on what you like. But that doesn't mitigate a person's right to challenge that which he or she disagrees with in the opposition .
I see where you're trying to go on this and I must say it's quite counter-productive to your cause . I could make loads of solid arguments as to why a voter would want to wait to make a voting decision . And simply because one party may or may not have a clear front-runner , doesn't indicate anything significantly awry .
2007-12-28 11:47:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The attitude of "anyone is better than Bush" or "anyone but a Republican" seems to be quite prevalent, particularly around here. It's ignorant and dangerous. People need to put true thought and research behind their vote. So to answer your question, I would say it is "better" to choose a candidate you like and who represents your ideas and beliefs. Not to mention character, experience and strong record.
Your question is more about semantics.
2007-12-28 12:01:38 · answer #7 · answered by Maudie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, you should support the one you want instead of downgrading the ones you don't want. However, this election has a lot of people wondering if there is any one candidate that can pull the Country together. Doesn't look good so far.
2007-12-28 11:51:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The ones you like more. We get to do that in the Primaries. In the general election that may be different.
2007-12-28 11:44:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have never liked a politician... ever. Seriously, I have disliked Nixon (terrible man, even before Watergate broke) Ford (well, a mild dislike), Carter (mild dislike), Reagan (couldn't stand the nimwit), Bush Sr. (mild dislike), Clinton (a smarmy guy that I would have a beer with but would never trust him), and Bush Jr. (a bigger nimwit than Reagan and a over-confident man with absolute no empathy in his soul... a dangerous combination of horrible traits in a stupid man).
So I am afraid that I don't have the luxury of your first option.
A whore is now a more respectable profession.
2007-12-28 11:51:56 · answer #10 · answered by cattledog 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋