Who are your candidates!

[GHook93]

With super Tuesday coming up I know a lot of you are probably voting in those primaries. What are your candidate in order. Try to at least pick three, even the Ron Paul supporters can pick more than just him. More than likely the generals won't include him.

(1) Mitt Romney - I personally am sold that his amazing private sector experience is sorely needed for any candidate. His achievements in the ultra-liberal MA shouldn't also not be over-looked. Yep it would take Romney pulling out of the IL primary for me not to vote for him.

Why to vote for Romney!

(2) Guiliani - The man and sunk like a rock. Yes is does seem slimy, but he has an UNDENIABLE RECORD of huge achievements in NY. I was in NY before the Mayor too over and I was in towards the end of his term. NY did a 180, in the areas of crime, safety and economic advancements. He also did a great job of helping hold the country together after 9/11. He kept his cool. I also believe he will be tough on terror, and unlike some I believe we are at war with Islamic terrorist.

(3) McCain - Yep the man is a hawk, but he at least seems to have a plan. He constantly is ranked as the anti-pork barrel candidate. He is also very trust-worthy. Like him or hate him, but (much like Ron Paul) you can trust the words that come out of his mouth. He is also a very honorable man. He also has the best chance of beating the Democrats and that is something not to overlook.

(4) Ron Paul - Yes I was one of his harshest critics, but the more debates I saw him in the more he started to make sense. Like McCain you can believe the words that come out of his mouth. I believe he would get taxes down. He has by far the best views on immigration. I used to think he was a radical that wanted to just empower business against the little man, but after hearing him speak, I see he has a plan! I would be more than happy to vote for him if he was the candidate. He would be higher if he wasn't calling for ending the EPA and I think his views on never intervening when their is genocide (aka Kosovo, Rwanda, the Holocaust, Somolia and the Congo) is immoral. However, I now believe his good points outweigh his bad!

(5) Mayor Bloomberg - Yep if the top 4 are not their I would be consider the 3rd party candidate. The man has a nice record in NY like Guiliani. Yes he was advantaged by what the Mayur did for Bloomberg came to office. Bloomberg also has a sparkling private sector record like Romney.
___________________________________________________________
The drop off. I would be happy with the top 5 I would have to settle from here.

(6) Huckabee - Tramples on the 1st A. freedom of religion way too much, has stated his desire for an all Christian US, raised taxes in AK, raised spending in AK, not tough on immigration and denies evolution. I would only vote for him to keep the tax hungry Democrats out of office.

(7) Obama - Best of the communist socialist Democratic 3, that want to tax us to hell and force more inadequate government programs down our throats.

(8) Clinton - I would never vote for her in a million years. It has nothing to do with not voting for a women, rather its not voting for this women that guides me

(9) Edwards - I would honestly leave the country if he was elected to office. Thank god he has no chance!

[Nono]

Quote by: GHook Edwards - I would honestly leave the country if he was elected to office.

That right, eh G? Where would you go then?
Methinks you give Edwards more credit (for the kind of thing you'd abhor and I'd support) than the dude deserves.

So, to the point:

Edwards talks the talk I like best, but he's walked a different walk in the senate. Anyway, his electoral case looks hopeless.

Obama is a fraud, I'm convinced.

Which prompts me to take another long look at Hillary, whom I'd forsworn as unprincipled (well, they all are, aren't they?).

Yeah, Hillary would be most likely to actually try to deliver the sort of policies I'd support. But:

- Would she have a congress she could work with?

- Is she electable at all?

As for the Republicans, they all look like primitivist wackjobs to me, even McCain (who looks relatively sane -- relatively).

And as always the question: Is this all a country of 300 million people can cough up?

[Sweet Katie]

First of all, kudos, GHook, for taking the time to understand your candidates viewpoints. Watching the news doesn't give you that information!

I am pro-life . . . and pro-choice (I just prefer to give that choice to the unborn child). That is my #1 decision in voting; therefore, Guiliani and the Democrates have no chance of getting my vote. I am also against ruining what little good there is in health care by allowing the government to swallow it. Clinton seems more socialist than democratic to me. I also disagree with her ideas to raise taxes on the people who have achieved the American dream and ridding the country of corporations by taxing the profits out of them . . . to grow Big Brother Government.

I do not believe in setting a date for withdrawl of troops from Iraq . . . Therefore, Ron Paul will not get my vote.

I am still deciding, by eliminating candidates one by one until the one least offensive to me is left standing.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Sweet Katie I am pro-life . . . and pro-choice (I just prefer to give that choice to the unborn child). That is my #1 decision in voting; therefore, Guiliani and the Democrates have no chance of getting my vote. I am also against .

Abortion have nothing to quite do with the candidates views on the matter. Rather it has to do with the type of judge they will appoint to the supreme court. Sh!t Bush almost appointed a borderline liberal the Supreme Court. Guiliani would appoint conservative judges to the bench, which would be more that likely anti-Roe v. Wade. If you fear voting for the Mayor because of abortion, you need-not-be. He would appoint the judges that you would be happy with.

What I was looking more for people to number the 1-8 (or 9 if you include Bloomberg) on how you would vote. I have obviously pretty shown I am not going to vote for any Democrats!

[GHook93]

Quote by: Nono That right, eh G? Where would you go then?

I don't, where is old Europe?

Methinks you give Edwards more credit (for the kind of thing you'd abhor and I'd support) than the dude deserves.

Too much credit for what, he sucks!

As for the Republicans, they all look like primitivist wackjobs to me, even McCain (who looks relatively sane -- relatively).

I think you say this because you are across the pond and used to the European rhetoric bashing America and bashing the war!

And as always the question: Is this all a country of 300 million people can cough up?

I am actually satisfied with the candidates running!

[Charlatan]

Clinton, well I haven't thought about it much, but a tax raise isn't that bad, and socialism can work in moderation I guess. Why I would vote for her is that she has experience, like she keeps repeating, but let's not forget people don't just wake up handling the stress of the job. New York is tough to govern, as it is big and attracts lots of different kinds of people, so you could say she has experience with lots of different topics. In New York you get alot of people watching you, so she is used to the pressure once again. Also the econmic climate of wall street just around the corner, she must have handled something like that at some time or another. New York is the cradle of sin as I see it, and managing that climate every day must be tough, so she is conditioned too. Just what is wrong with people sharing? That is what socialism is about, so if people can learn to be less reliant on themselves to bring home the bread and more open to the state becoming part of their lives, then there should be no problem. It isn't a sweeping change is it? Raising taxes will provide more for the people by taking a bit from every person, so they shoulder the price for a better country, and viola, they benefit too. If everyone suffers a little bit, and there is much good done for the country otherwise, where is the harm there? In raising taxes people will want to see results though, so raising taxes and providing services there shouldn't be a problem, as people pay for those services otherwise. Now you don't have the bother of managing it yourself.

In 'socialising the country a bit more', people have more time to themselves, and if people react well, the government has more control over the populace. That is a good thing because time is important to people who spend hours sorting out their odds and ends, and it creates a stream of questions that people have trouble keeping track of. With a centre provided for all these things, people, with their added taxes, can get the answers they need easily. Centralising of services means less headaches for the inspectors too, as they need to investigate a efficient standardised system, not differing in ways to inspect, and varying inspection targets considering this or that.

What does it mean to socialise? To work together, that is what it means, so making people work together to achieve their goals will leave less people out, as all are thought of. So keeping everyone in mind will make sure that people get their services, in fact the services might be better with the extra money. They go hand in hand.

I would also like to see Guiliani and Mitt romeny in office, because my peer speaks highly of them.

[lsbskins1]

1-John Edwards - I know he can't win, but his focus on making economic issues central appeals to me, as I believe most of what is wrong with government can be traced back to it's being in bed with Big Business and not small businesses and the erroneous belief that when someone wins, everyone does better.

2-3- Tie, Clinton and Obama - It would take hours to compare and contrast the pluses and minuses of each. Suffice it to say that either, with their more progressive ideas in comparison to how we've been governed in the last 7 years from the White House, and since '92 in the congress, will be better than any Republican alternative.

Of the Republican contenders, there are things I really hate about them all, but that is because there are things I hate about the "conservative" ideology, but if I had to say who scares me least, probably John McCain, but that is only when you ignore his position on the war. That alone scares the crap out of me.

[Nono]

Quote by: GHook Where is old Europe?

Dunno. Ask Donald Rumsfeld. He thought the term up. I think it's the Yurp that really gets them Merkins ornery.

[The Decider]

1) Tie: Clinton and Obama

I am still undecided. On the issues, both share similar positions. Whomever has the best chance to win in November will get my vote.

2) Edwards. If by some miracle Clinton and Obama lose support, I would have no trouble voting for Edwards. Electability is his main problem.

3) Blank. Under no circumstances would I vote for the current crop of Republican candidates. Every one of them shares one or more of the following deal breakers: neo-con warmonger, anti-abortion, religious zealot, opposes national health insurance, praises George W. Bush, supports more massive tax cuts, ignores poor people, will appoint radical conservative judges, scapegoats illegal immigrants, and flip-flops like fish out of water. Eight years of Republican rule has been eight years too many. We don't need four more.

[The Decider]

1) Tie: Clinton and Obama

I am still undecided. On the issues, both share similar positions. Whomever has the best chance to win in November will get my vote.

2) Edwards. If by some miracle Clinton and Obama lose support, I would have no trouble voting for Edwards. Electability is his main problem.

3) Blank. Under no circumstances would I vote for the current crop of Republican candidates. Every one of them shares one or more of the following deal breakers: neo-con warmonger, anti-abortion, religious zealot, opposes national health insurance, praises George W. Bush, supports more massive tax cuts, ignores poor people, will appoint radical conservative judges, scapegoats illegal immigrants, and flip-flops like fish out of water. Eight years of Republican rule has been eight years too many. We don't need four more.

[GHook93]

Quote by: The Decider 1) Tie: Clinton and Obama I am still undecided. On the issues, both share similar positions. Whomever has the best chance to win in November will get my vote. 2) Edwards. If by some miracle Clinton and Obama lose support, I would have no trouble voting for Edwards. Electability is his main problem. 3) Blank. Under no circumstances would I vote for the current crop of Republican candidates. Every one of them shares one or more of the following deal breakers: neo-con warmonger, anti-abortion, religious zealot, opposes national health insurance, praises George W. Bush, supports more massive tax cuts, ignores poor people, will appoint radical conservative judges, scapegoats illegal immigrants, and flip-flops like fish out of water. Eight years of Republican rule has been eight years too many. We don't need four more.

Decider if you have to pick a Communists opps I mean Democrats, then pick Obama! Clinton is damaged goods and Edwards is a nutjob!

[Milton Bradley]

Here is a progress report on the campaign of Dr. Paul.

YouTube - Ron Paul Progress


This man is the only person running that I could sanction with my vote.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: GHook93 Who are your candidates!

Despite that I take Democrats for "Left-Handed" , I think that out of all the candidates for the U.S. President post, Obama seems to be "the most suitable" individual - based on the actual info.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Here is a progress report on the campaign of Dr. Paul. YouTube - Ron Paul Progress This man is the only person running that I could sanction with my vote.

He also has the worst chance of an candidate from either party to win the nomination. I will admit he is not as bad as I initially thought and I would be happy to vote for him if he some how won the nomination. But Milt isn't it time to face facts. More than likely RP will be sitting at home 2/6 without any primary or caucus wins. In that event, who would be your 2nd or 3rd choices!

[GHook93]

Quote by: Rainbow Despite that I take Democrats for "Left-Handed" , I think that out of all the candidates for the U.S. President post, Obama seems to be "the most suitable" individual - based on the actual info.

What are you basing that on?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: GHook93 He also has the worst chance of an candidate from either party to win the nomination. I will admit he is not as bad as I initially thought and I would be happy to vote for him if he some how won the nomination. But Milt isn't it time to face facts. More than likely RP will be sitting at home 2/6 without any primary or caucus wins. In that event, who would be your 2nd or 3rd choices!

Where am I not facing the facts in suggsting that there is only person visible whom I would sanction with my vote?


I'm merely stating that if Ronbo doesn't make it, I'll vote Libertarian, or for some other party.


We could still all write in Ron Paul.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Where am I not facing the facts in suggsting that there is only person visible whom I would sanction with my vote?

Fair enough

I'm merely stating that if Ronbo doesn't make it, I'll vote Libertarian, or for some other party.

At the present time in American history that is the equivalent of tossing your vote away.

We could still all write in Ron Paul.

Ditto

[Rainbow]

Quote by: GHook93 What are you basing that on?

Clinton - a political moron
Edwards - see Clinton

[tweinberger]

Hello!

I agree with those rankings pretty much, but I'd probably have Hilary as my last options. I don't know where I would go if she won the vote. I realize there is an excellent chance of that happening. I am thinking that John McCain, in my opinion of course, has the best shot of beating her.

Oh well, we'll see what happens :)

Terry

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: GHook93 At the present time in American history that is the equivalent of tossing your vote away.

I'd raqther throw it away than sanction the theft, coercion, and fraud that is running for President today.