Torn over presidential candidates (page 2)

juni

the way I look at it is this -

If you don't vote then you can't complain. Simple as that.

How many people that vote really understand what the person they vote for is really about? They lie and say whatever they think the voters want to hear. I've never heard a ligitiment reason why the soldiers are staying in Iraq. What about the immagration problem that is draining the medicare dry? There has got to be some reason why it isn't being handled. Some agreement between Bush and the president of Mexico??? Maybe I just don't understand politics or maybe see it for really what it is.

Ken P.

heathen

I've never heard a ligitiment reason why the soldiers are staying in Iraq. What about the immagration problem that is draining the medicare dry? There has got to be some reason why it isn't being handled. Some agreement between Bush and the president of Mexico???

Those are the major issues for the next election . The only reason they gave for Iraq was ,bringing democracy to the mid east , the immigration problem was always there and always ignored ( special interest money and corrupt corporations). Just like the levies in now orleans you know something is going to give .

tetrapod.sapien

i don't see anything to be torn over here.

vote for yourself man, and never forget it. babylon is never going to serve up any leaders that will lead you and your neighbors out of bondage.

word.

tetra

Hortensia

I always planned to vote for the first woman or black person to run for the office of president. Unfortunately, we have a woman and a black man in the running and I don't like either one of them! I guess I'll vote Libertarian again.

Swan

I'm waiting for President Gore to run again; if he does and he wins the primaries, I will vote for him again.

Unfortunately I never get a good selection to pick from in the primary because by the time we have ours, the other candidates have dropped out, and the race is considerably narrowed. Since starting to vote 13 years ago I have learned that New Hampshire, Iowa, and a few other states will determine who we get to pick from, or so it seems.

Tammy

Save My Soul

I never use party lines as a determining factor. Clinton had a BJ in office and everyone made him out to be a madman.

IMO, he never had ONE person lose their life for a vendetta. He did not create a w ar that was not necessary. The co untry that was attacted was run by your typical run of the mill dicta tor. A threa t? Probably not.

When the current prez was elected, I purchased several shares of companies that have proved to be a boon for many portifolios.

Vote with your heart, not just your party.

frankiespeakin

Tetra,

vote for yourself man, and never forget it. babylon is never going to serve up any leaders that will lead you and your neighbors out of bondage.

I cast my vote for Tetra.

AllAlongTheWatchtower

I feel ya...I consider myself moderate, not republican or democrat, but if it comes down to a choice between Hillary vs candidate x in 08, I'd go with x. The republican side of things seems to offer slim pickings though. I used to think Giuliani was good, but I've found out things recently about him that changed my mind (scandals, free speech issues, controversy over treatment of emergency workers, etc) I'd like to see Colin Powell run myself, but that seems unlikely at this point. Regarding your statement that Thompson is atheist; in my case, that would be a reason to support him, however, according to Wikipedia, he is a member of the 'Churches of Christ'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson

"If elected president, Thompson would be only the second president in U.S. history (after James Garfield) to belong to the Churches of Christ, a small, non-denominational Christian group that emerged from the American Restoration Movement in the 19th century."

Qcmbr

Ok its nowt to do with me so in typical fashion Ill opine.

Its become something of a sick fetish of mine to read (daily - sometimes hourly - I said it was sick) reports on Romney. On one hand (the 'why can't everyone see how cool Morm's are?' side) I wonder why people wouldn't want someone who has a proven track record of financial brilliance, is potentially unimpeachable, has no known skeletons, impresses visually (and that is more important than we may wish to admit), has an organisational streak of genius, is meticulous in gathering facts and is bound by his religious idiosyncracies to be honest and full of integrity candidate ?- on the other hand (the 'where did all those shades of gray come from?' side) as I've expressed here before while he may indeed be a stunning candidate I'm concerned that he has an insurmountable conflict of interest that should disqualify him from leadership in a public body because no matter how brilliant he may be at running USA plc he would have to obey the prophet before the people - its not an option for a commited LDS person. While the current LDS prophet and his immediate succesors are all lovely old men its not a big jump to find some ultra extreme prophet stepping up at some point in a Romney presidency - that would be bad news. So what would I like to see for Romney? Of course the LDS training provides a huge instinctual surge that would happily vote for Romney (or indeed even a monkey as long as it attended church and paid its 10%) but the more considered part of me steps back and thinks he'd be great in charge of failing government departments - great for producing innovative fix-it schemes but also far safer in those roles rather than commander in chief - ironically it is the prophet that stops me fully endorsing Romney - not the man himself.

As for other candidates I'm no great follower of US politics but this is my media fed impression:

Clinton - born of corruption and breeder of it - I couldn't trust her period.
Obama - I like him, I think he is someone I could be happy with but (and I'm maybe giving to much credence to bigotry) I'm not certain the western world would respect a black president yet.
Edwards - I can't get past the smile - its just too vacuous - what does he really want - he looks like a pretty boy who nobody would listen to - not effectual enough.
Gore (should he run) - no no no you buffoon - I get the feeling it would be like voting in a watered down David Icke. You'd never be certain what mood he was in today and what drastic action would result.
Mccain - tough but you've just had one idiot (and I really mean that from an intellectual point of view) in office - would it be wise to make the new most powerful man an angry man who seems unable to listen?
Guiliani - is it me or does he seem like a one trick pony? One disaster and you ride it for all its worth even ignoring that you have precious little else in the tank. Should a president be anchored in one experience only? I hope not.
Thompson - too 'old' by far and too stuck in his old ways, I get the feeling he'd find all his policies in the past rather than optimising for the future.

The rest don't seem to have a cat in hells chance.

Torn over presidential candidates