I want to know who you think should be our next?

Question

president. Chosen from the ones who are running now. Also why do you feel they should be. I am voting for Bill Richardson because He has plenty of experience and know his material. I like his personality and his stern position. I feel he will bring a new and better oppurtunity to America.

Answer 1

to both the poster and gaykawa:

It is a strange thing that people honestly think they are changing their country because they vote for a president.

The president seems to do whatever works best for a small number of very powerful corporate interests. It was true with Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. The president is not the person that devises or sets our policies.

That's done by people most of us have never even heard of.

In the case of many administrations, one of these power players also makes it into the white house, I believe to keep an insider's eye on their puppets, make sure they don't say or do the wrong thing. Currently that overseer is VP Cheney... he's needed to control the possibility of someone spilling the beans...

We have not had a true constitutionally defined government for quite some time. Richardson, Clinton, Romney: if you look closely, you can see the strings that connect them to the manipulators.

Ron Paul is interesting. He actually keeps saying exactly what I just said. So does Kucinich. These men have no chance of winning because a) they speak the truth Americans wish not to hear, and b) the corporations simply will not allow it and they get their handmaidens in the press to downplay these candidates.

Vote if it makes you feel better... but get real. It is not the people's government, and hasn't been for the better part of the last fifty years.

Answer 2

Choosing a leader for any country has been downplayed by people referring to these individuals as the anti-Christ. Believing that they will save us from all of our problems, and people tend to leave it as such. And allow a person or persons to control our every move we make, even when they have pledged not to support issues that a majority of Americans are clearly against, again a malice ploy  to get your vote. And I like to thank the first two answerers for putting it out the way they did,,,,good job!

Answer 3

I've given my take on the candidates elsewhere, but I will give another.

First of all, I will not be voting for a Republican.  Even if Fred Thompson gets in the race.  I don't trust the Republicans, particularly the group in power now.  They care only for the wealthiest of individuals/families, run the government as though they are organized crime lords, and obviously feel "the peasantry" are expendable.  They've put everything on the credit card; their fiscal policy of "borrow and spend" is irresponsible, inefficient, and inept.  George W. Bush never had a business that was successful and running our country is no exception.  It's time for our country to get back to its roots and its values, something this group of liars and thieves care nothing about.  I'm tired of the selfishness, deceit, and greed.  So I greatly distrust ANY Republican at this point in time.

On the Democrat side, I would definitely not vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a corporatist and a centrist.  I'm tired of middle-of-the-road compromises and cave-ins to bullies and corporations.  She takes money from lobbyists and special interest groups, which is one of the main reasons I will not support her.  I don't trust her.  

Barak Obama is too green.  Not enough experience.  And he changes his answers from one time to the next on some things.  He hesitates when he shouldn't.  Plus, he'd trade Iraq for Afghanistan and I'm tired of war, period.  We've squandered enough lives and money for Bush & Cheney's personal agenda of power and profit.

Gravel is too hot-headed.  I shudder to think of him at the helm with his finger "on the button".  There's just something about him that's a tad "off".  Emotionally unpredictable, anger issues.  Unstable.  That's how he comes off to me.

Biden.  Although I like some of his answers, he just doesn't inspire me to vote for him.  He seems just a little too cocky, a little too sure of himself.  Also, too willing to compromise on issues that are important for change, which means change will be slow in coming, if at all.

Kucinich.  Nice guy, lofty ideals, too liberal for the country at this point in time.  Also, I'm not sure he'd be perceived as tough enough by the leaders of other countries.  Could he walk softly and carry a big stick?  I think he could walk softly, but I also think he'd leave the stick behind.  I'd have serious foreign policy concerns, I think.

Dodd.  Presidential sounding but just doesn't stick out.  I sense here someone who might be manipulated by others with stronger personalities.  Not a good trait for a president.  Of course, it's not too good to go the other way, either.  Look at G.W.  He's got too strong of a personality.  He's still manipulated because of his over-inflated ego, but he is decisive.  I don't get that sense of decisiveness from Dodd.

Richardson.  I could support him but again, he just doesn't stick out all that much.  He has some good ideas on education and immigration.  He has experience.  I like his sense of humor.  But I'm not voting for someone because I like them or could party with them or hang with them.  Still, he would be my second choice.

My first choice, then, is John Edwards.  I really like the way he tells the truth about the two Americas.  I respect and admire the work he's done and continues to do to help eradicate poverty and help level the playing field for all the "have-nots".  I like the fact that he knows what it's like to be poor because his dad was a factory worker, just like my mom was.  I know he can relate.  And I admire him for being able to achieve the American Dream and for his dedication to helping other people do the same thing.  

I especially like the fact that Edwards doesn't take money from lobbyists or pacs.  I LOVE the fact that he supports the ultimate campaign finance reform - publicly financed elections.  That eliminates all the opportunities for abuse and levels the playing field for people who have less money.  The way it is now, only wealthy people can afford to run for office.  That's not the way it's supposed to be in this country, and I like it that Edwards "gets" that and wants to do something about it.

I also think he's got one of the best plans for universal healthcare, and although I personally like Kucinich's plan the best, Edward's plan, I think, gets us there faster.  Since I don't have health insurance, that speaks volumes for me.

I also like his stance on education and Iraq.  All in all, there's really everything to like and not much to dislike about Edwards.  The fact that he's easy on the eyes doesn't hurt, either!  

Of course, that might change if Gore decided to run, but he won't.  He's evolved to higher things, like saving the planet.  Edwards can save our country.  

I see in Edwards a little Robert F. Kennedy, and a little Franklin D. Roosevelt.  I truly believe he is for reform by doing what's right for the country and for the common good, for the common man/woman.  So, he gets my vote and my trust.  And that's saying something.

Answer 4

I wonder why the future of a country has to be in the hands of one person. The way you put it, one candidate will bring a new opportunity and others won't. It doesn't matter what you and all the rest do, it's all in the hands of one person.

It's not you, it's everyone and it has been for a long time. Socialist democracies have become this, the future in the hands of one person, a hero, a savior. And the worst part is that, after all these years, we should have noticed that it's not working. We're always hoping for the next one.

What we need is to take the power away from the government. No more future in the hands of one. No more power to change the future of all. The future is going to be what we do of it, it's going to be our responsibility. Now, we let the government be responsible for it and it always fail. It's easier for us to give it away and blame the government after, but it's not right.

It's a lot worse in the USA where the federal government is an illusion, a very good one. If you check the name carefully, you'll see that the USA is a union of states. Not a nation divided in states, a union of independent states.

The federal government was created as an entity for the coordination of the union and, as such, subordinated to the power of the states. Eventually, it took control of the money through the federal reserve, got its own resources through federal taxes, took over the regulation of foreign trade (controlling the resources of the states) and subordinated the states to its power by being the main source of income for the state governments. Now, the future of all the states and all its citizens is in the hands of one.

Think about it before choosing your candidate.