Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read this article this morning on the ABC News website that says Giuliani likes McCain and would support McCain if he wasn't running himself. The writer of the article speculates on a Giuliani/McCain ticket.
I'm wondering if this (McCain as Giuliani's running mate) would be viewed as a positive or a negative for you?
For me it's a negative but I want to know what other Republicans think.
The ABC News website appears to be down right now but here is the link in case it comes up later.
No. I couldn't vote for either one of them or as a team. They are too mainstream and IMO corrupt like the Bushes and Clintons. I have never been a fan of McCain. My vote will be going to Ron Paul, whether or not he has a shot at winning. If Paul isn't on the ballot come Nov. 08 I don't know who I would vote for as president. Certainly not Hillary, McCain or Giuliani.
Sorry, in answer to your question, it would be a negative, but it could prevent Hillary from becoming president.
Last edited by SALteacher; 08-18-2007 at 09:50 AM..
Reason: adding words
I read this article this morning on the ABC News website that says Giuliani likes McCain and would support McCain if he wasn't running himself. The writer of the article speculates on a Giuliani/McCain ticket.
I'm wondering if this (McCain as Giuliani's running mate) would be viewed as a positive or a negative for you?
For me it's a negative but I want to know what other Republicans think.
The ABC News website appears to be down right now but here is the link in case it comes up later.
No, because McCain was willing to switch to Democrat in 2004 to run with John Kerry. I don't do well with political flip-floppers, especially core belief changes in the name of power.
No. I couldn't vote for either one of them or as a team. They are too mainstream and IMO corrupt like the Bushes and Clintons. I have never been a fan of McCain. My vote will be going to Ron Paul, whether or not he has a shot at winning. If Paul isn't on the ballot come Nov. 08 I don't know who I would vote for as president. Certainly not Hillary, McCain or Giuliani.
Sorry, in answer to your question, it would be a negative, but it could prevent Hillary from becoming president.
Do people actually think Hillary is going to win in 2008?
It's sort of a long-shot, wouldn't you say? Just three years ago John Kerry scared most of the nation with his socialist attitude, and his socialist policies are moderate compared to Hillary Clinton's.
Do people actually think Hillary is going to win in 2008?
It's sort of a long-shot, wouldn't you say? Just three years ago John Kerry scared most of the nation with his socialist attitude, and his socialist policies are moderate compared to Hillary Clinton's.
Yes. Despite her negative appeal and her husband's past, I believe that she has the greatest chance to win I hate to sound conspiratorial because trust me, that's not the way I am. However, there are too many things that are being coordinated that we don't see. It's not by accident IMO that we have had basically two families running the W-H over the last almost 30 years; Bushes and Clintons The media in this country has done everything to tout this woman as a moderate, even though many people must know her socialist agenda. The media wants this woman elected and will do everything they can to help. IMO voting in certain areas of the country; Florida for one and other "swing" states is no long a secure bet. Electronic voting machines are not fool proof and can be easily tampered with Who's handling these machines and can we trust there's enough oversight to prevent changes should the voting not go the way some "people" would like it. Again sorry to sound so conspiratorial, but too many things don't add up.
No, because McCain was willing to switch to Democrat in 2004 to run with John Kerry. I don't do well with political flip-floppers, especially core belief changes in the name of power.
Just for the sake of accuracy, actually McCain was NOT willing to change parties and run with John Kerry. He actually turned Kerry's initial offerings down. It was Kerry who initiated this idea.
Yes. Despite her negative appeal and her husband's past, I believe that she has the greatest chance to win I hate to sound conspiratorial because trust me, that's not the way I am. However, there are too many things that are being coordinated that we don't see. It's not by accident IMO that we have had basically two families running the W-H over the last almost 30 years; Bushes and Clintons The media in this country has done everything to tout this woman as a moderate, even though many people must know her socialist agenda. The media wants this woman elected and will do everything they can to help. IMO voting in certain areas of the country; Florida for one and other "swing" states is no long a secure bet. Electronic voting machines are not fool proof and can be easily tampered with Who's handling these machines and can we trust there's enough oversight to prevent changes should the voting not go the way some "people" would like it. Again sorry to sound so conspiratorial, but too many things don't add up.
To SDBreaux:
I should add however, that a Giulani/McCain ticket could complicate things enough that Hillary could lose. But either way IMO having Hilliary and Giulani at the top of their respective parties would again be a case of picking the lesser of two evils..what a drag that would be. I couldn't vote for either one of them if that's the scenario which played out
Last edited by SALteacher; 08-18-2007 at 12:39 PM..
Reason: add addressee
What crazy socialist policy does Hillary Clinton want to implement? Is she planning to abolish private businesses and concentrate the means of production in the hands of the state, or are you people just overreacting and listening to AM radio too much?
What crazy socialist policy does Hillary Clinton want to implement? Is she planning to abolish private businesses and concentrate the means of production in the hands of the state, or are you people just overreacting and listening to AM radio too much?
Try socializing medicine for starters. She'll also tax the hell out of everyone and become big government's best friend. It's not overreacting, it's called looking at her record. Don't buy into this "she's a moderate" garbage.
Try socializing medicine for starters. She'll also tax the hell out of everyone and become big government's best friend. It's not overreacting, it's called looking at her record. Don't buy into this "she's a moderate" garbage.
Yep, gotta agree with this. I remember in one of her speeches, she was talking about profits and said quote "I want to take those profits for the greater good of society". Isn't that one of the many things that socialist like to do? Claim they want to take away for the greater good of everyone?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hate to sound conspiratorial because trust me, that's not the way I am. However, there are too many things that are being coordinated that we don't see. It's not by accident IMO that we have had basically two families running the W-H over the last almost 30 years; Bushes and Clintons
The media in this country has done everything to tout this woman as a moderate, even though many people must know her socialist agenda. The media wants this woman elected and will do everything they can to help. IMO voting in certain areas of the country; Florida for one and other "swing" states is no long a secure bet. Electronic voting machines are not fool proof and can be easily tampered with
Who's handling these machines and can we trust there's enough oversight to prevent changes should the voting not go the way some "people" would like it. Again sorry to sound so conspiratorial, but too many things don't add up.
