I see...well I disagree with your 1), but I was just curious how you felt about the war, since every republican you picked other than Hagel, are war supporters.
What if?
- Thread starter Care4all
- Start date
I see...well I disagree with your 1), but I was just curious how you felt about the war, since every republican you picked other than Hagel, are war supporters.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
That said, back to the topic...
At this point I would vote Clark over any Rep. Richardson over everyone but Hagel, McCain and Rudy. Obama would get my vote against Brownback, Newt (not sure about Hunter as I don't know who he is). I would vote for a rock before I would vote for Hillary.
At this point I would vote Clark over any Rep. Richardson over everyone but Hagel, McCain and Rudy. Obama would get my vote against Brownback, Newt (not sure about Hunter as I don't know who he is). I would vote for a rock before I would vote for Hillary.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Darla... the picks were not really based on the war, but more of an anti-Hillary. I cannot stand her, do not trust her and I have had enough of the Clinton/Bush reign. No matter who the candidates end up being, the war is not going to be my primary factor. I am going to look at who provides the best detailed plans for leading this country overall.
Absolutely. I would vote for Richardson over any republican out there. I would strongly consider Edwards, though his trial lawyer background doesn't sit well with me. I definitely would vote for Clark (again), though he likely won't run and certainly won't get the nomination. I would vote for several democrats over the republicans but my choice of democrats and the nations choice of democrats aren't usually the same.
Oh, well, we're totally opposite on that. I actually do like her and am disappointed that I can't vote for her. But for me, stopping the war is the number one issue.
I was just wondering because you seem so comfortable with republicans. Brownback? But I guess you are socially conservative and that's why.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"Oh, well, we're totally opposite on that. I actually do like her and am disappointed that I can't vote for her. But for me, stopping the war is the number one issue."
I am not surprised that we are opposite. I am a true fiscal conservative and socially moderate. You are a tad more liberal than me. But I do wonder, why can't you vote for Hillary? Because of her lack of a stance on the war?
I am not surprised that we are opposite. I am a true fiscal conservative and socially moderate. You are a tad more liberal than me. But I do wonder, why can't you vote for Hillary? Because of her lack of a stance on the war?
Yes, and it changes daily. One day she says "If I were President I wouldn't have started this war, and when I am president I will end it." Well, besides for her vote, there is plenty of evidence that she would have started this war, since she spoke for it very forcefully at the time.
And then the next day she says "we'll have to keep permanent troops in Iraq for sometime but we'll scale back". Give me a break. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Vietnam knows what that kind of campaign promise is going to lead to.
I understand a candidate saying, look I can't get us out in one day, but I will start the drawdown and we will be out, completely" within one year, or six months, or whatever. But not this.
It is a shame that not one of the candidates listed even speak of declaration of war. I would like the next President to be somebody who would not take our military into protracted war without an actual war declaration.
I like Romney's stance on the border. (Close it then find a logical path to citizenship for those here.)
I have no idea who Duncan Hunter is, and I should... I'm a bit uncomfortable admitting that...
I think McCain was screwed out of his one shot at it in 2k.
I think Giuliani's stances on Gay Marriage etc, if they remain the same as they were in NYC as Mayor may make it impossible for him to get the nod, but otherwise those stances are a positive IMO. Just as with Mitt... unfortunately he is playing the walk the edge game with that.
I would vote for Mitt, but I don't think he'd win when 25% of the nation already say they would never vote for a Mormon. Darla is close to killing Giuliani's chances to gain my vote. If he treats women that way there is a high chance that elitism would make him treat others that way as well, we don't need that in the WH right now.
I already said I am not going to vote for a legacy President ever again. I think it is a mistake to continue to vote the same families in, especially when people speak of elitism and nepotism in government as a bad thing but are willing to ignore it for their own party.
so, in most cases I'd probably vote Libertarian, except in the ones above that I said I'd vote for them.
I like Romney's stance on the border. (Close it then find a logical path to citizenship for those here.)
I have no idea who Duncan Hunter is, and I should... I'm a bit uncomfortable admitting that...
I think McCain was screwed out of his one shot at it in 2k.
I think Giuliani's stances on Gay Marriage etc, if they remain the same as they were in NYC as Mayor may make it impossible for him to get the nod, but otherwise those stances are a positive IMO. Just as with Mitt... unfortunately he is playing the walk the edge game with that.
I would vote for Mitt, but I don't think he'd win when 25% of the nation already say they would never vote for a Mormon. Darla is close to killing Giuliani's chances to gain my vote. If he treats women that way there is a high chance that elitism would make him treat others that way as well, we don't need that in the WH right now.
I already said I am not going to vote for a legacy President ever again. I think it is a mistake to continue to vote the same families in, especially when people speak of elitism and nepotism in government as a bad thing but are willing to ignore it for their own party.
so, in most cases I'd probably vote Libertarian, except in the ones above that I said I'd vote for them.
Wow, really? That is so cool. And that's why I object to how he treated his wife, because it was extreme, and one thing you learn as a woman, always listen to what the ex has to say, even though when you're about 22, you think that you shouldn't, you should. If he treated her really shabby, he will do it to you too. I dont mean a breakup, I mean real nasty stuff like what Rudy did. And, if he will treat her that way, he will treat you that way, but further, he will treat his business partner that way, and he will treat his friend that way. It's just in them, and it's in Rudy and he doesn't give a crap about anything but me me me.
It also shows poor judgement. To parade your mistress in front of your city in such a way is simply poor judgement IMO.
Yes, I have been. It's interesting, Prak used to write about that all of the time, when Kerick was nominated for that position in Homeland security i think it was? And all of this stuff was already out there, but it was not being picked up. Now it is.
That's what happens when you run for President and it's just another reason why I have never understood this guy running. To me, just the fact that he is running for President, shows poor judgement. I personally believe, he is going to end up taking down more than one person with him before it's over.
And yes, Rudy knew, and is now claiming that it slipped his mind, and he should have paid closer attention to the report he got about it. Yeah, I guess so!
I have to admit I try to keep candidates personal trists out of my mind when I consider voting for them. But the stuff I'm hearing about Rudy!? I can't even look at him smile, I just see horns coming out of his head.
I don't much care about the tryst, it is the poor judgement of taking his mistress alongside him at the parade and other things that show such poor judgement that it becomes less than likely that I'd vote for him.
C
Cancel5
Guest
Yeah, mistresses are to be hiding away at the hunting lodge or some such thing...