G
gilliam
Guest
We can easily get carried away here. The US has had a lot worse presidents than Obama; and the US population rates Obama about the same as Clinton & Regan
- Status
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
And elected HOPE, and trust me we are still running on it. The fact of the silence on who should be elected ought to tell you “why” HOPE was elected.
D
DeniseNY
Guest
That’s what got us into the mess we’re in currently!
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Yes, this time around, let’s do head over heart. I’m telling you, if it’s Romney again, I give up - moving to Canada and becoming a socialist.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Oh PULLLLLEZZZZZEEEEEE!!!
Hillary’s numbers have been quietly slipping and she’s in some trouble in numerous swing-states.
Maybe the question should be who do will the democrats run if Hillary backs out? Vice President Biden? For a sitting VP, it’s unbelievable how low his numbers are against GOP contenders. A sitting VP should be a shoe-in to be the next president.
H
Havard
Guest
Dr. Ben Carson for President, with Condi as Veep.
I
ishii
Guest
= Hillary (or Democrat) landslide.
Condi - the orchestrator of Bush foreign policy.
Dr. Carson - never held elective office.
Let’s deal in reality, folks.
Ishii
H
Havard
Guest
I disagree strongly with the assertion that Condi was the orchestrator of the Bush foreign policy. As for Dr. Carson’s political experience, or lack thereof, look at who’s been elected the last two presidential elections. And over Hillary, in the Democratic Primary, no less. Charisma and the promise of a new path beat experience and a familiar face then, I don’t see why it couldn’t now.
P
Path_Finder
Guest
Obama would not have won without the African-American vote both times, 2008 and 2012.
I know some say Hillary will get the women’s vote but Obama came out as a strong attractive candidate, this I don’t think Hillary has.
I know some say Hillary will get the women’s vote but Obama came out as a strong attractive candidate, this I don’t think Hillary has.
I
ishii
Guest
First off - Condi was an integral part of Bush’s foreign policy as National security advisor. But second - I kind of like her in some ways. As for Dr. Carson, I agree with everything he says. But there is no precedent in American history for someone without electoral experience winning the presidency - unless they liberated Europe or defeated the Confederacy. Obama was a sitting US senator when he was elected. Dr. Carson has not been elected to anything.
Ishii
P
Personanongrata
Guest
D
Drew518
Guest
John Kasich. Govenor of Ohio. Nuff said. 
C
Cat
Guest
Paul Ryan has the best chance of winning. He can point to actual legislation that he has drafted and that has bi-partisan support, a rarity these days.
The problem is that his name is too similar to Rand Paul, and this confuses people.
I personally don’t think any Republican has a chance of winning the Presidency against Hilary Clinton. In spite of all his public sins, President Bill Clinton was a popular President who worked well with other politicians, and during his Presidency (thanks to the dot.com industry), the economy was booming and business flourished. He was actually a very business-friendly President, unlike Pres. Obama who makes business people nervous.
People don’t necessary like Mrs. Clinton, but they won’t be voting for her, they’ll be voting for nostalgia–their younger years before 9/11 when Pres. Clinton was in office and our biggest national problem was what he did with cigars and how often he ate at McDonald’s, not ISIS and Syria and beheading and all the other truly terrifying issues in the world today.
The problem is, it’s been a long time since the Reagan Presidency, and many people–and I admit, I’m one of them–aren’t sure that the various economic policies that Pres. Reagan put into effect will work today. They SHOULD work, dag nabbit! . When the government gets out of the way, when taxes and regulations are limited, when freedom abounds, the economy should boom. But will they work?
I’m not sure. And lots of the rest of us aren’t sure, and that makes people hesitant to vote Republican.
On the other hand, I don’t see how ANY Catholic can ever vote for ANY Democrat candidate because with only a few exceptions, ALL Democrats are Pro-Choice (in reality, pro-abortion). That tears it. We can’t vote for these people. I don’t care how pro-union or pro-“little guy” or pro-poor people (a big lie–the richest politicians are all Democrats!) they are–the Abortion Issue tops it all. Frankly, I don’t know how any of you can reconcile voting for a pro-abortion candidate; if they don’t “get” that abortion kills a human being, then how can they possibly think straight about any other human rights issue? It’s a vote for pure evil.
I am most concerned about the situation here in Illinois. I would LOVE to see the odious Sen. Dick Durbin unseated, but I’m not sure Oberweis can unseat him. And I would love to see Gov. Quinn out the door, but I don’t think it will happen. I think that there are too many questions about Bruce Rauner, his opponent, and since Rauner is pro-choice, many Catholics and other Christians will either abstain from voting for governor (which will help Gov. Quinn), or they will vote for the Libertarian candidate (generally speaking, Libertarians are against any regulations against abortion), and THAT will definitely help Gov. Quinn. I think we’re looking at four more years of high taxes and fleeing businesses with Gov. Quinn. I wish a miracle would occur and we would get a truly good candidate in Illinois. But the Chicago machine will chew the legs off of any truly good gubernatorial candidate. We’re so messed up here, and it’s a shame.
The problem is that his name is too similar to Rand Paul, and this confuses people.
I personally don’t think any Republican has a chance of winning the Presidency against Hilary Clinton. In spite of all his public sins, President Bill Clinton was a popular President who worked well with other politicians, and during his Presidency (thanks to the dot.com industry), the economy was booming and business flourished. He was actually a very business-friendly President, unlike Pres. Obama who makes business people nervous.
People don’t necessary like Mrs. Clinton, but they won’t be voting for her, they’ll be voting for nostalgia–their younger years before 9/11 when Pres. Clinton was in office and our biggest national problem was what he did with cigars and how often he ate at McDonald’s, not ISIS and Syria and beheading and all the other truly terrifying issues in the world today.
The problem is, it’s been a long time since the Reagan Presidency, and many people–and I admit, I’m one of them–aren’t sure that the various economic policies that Pres. Reagan put into effect will work today. They SHOULD work, dag nabbit! . When the government gets out of the way, when taxes and regulations are limited, when freedom abounds, the economy should boom. But will they work?
I’m not sure. And lots of the rest of us aren’t sure, and that makes people hesitant to vote Republican.On the other hand, I don’t see how ANY Catholic can ever vote for ANY Democrat candidate because with only a few exceptions, ALL Democrats are Pro-Choice (in reality, pro-abortion). That tears it. We can’t vote for these people. I don’t care how pro-union or pro-“little guy” or pro-poor people (a big lie–the richest politicians are all Democrats!) they are–the Abortion Issue tops it all. Frankly, I don’t know how any of you can reconcile voting for a pro-abortion candidate; if they don’t “get” that abortion kills a human being, then how can they possibly think straight about any other human rights issue? It’s a vote for pure evil.
I am most concerned about the situation here in Illinois. I would LOVE to see the odious Sen. Dick Durbin unseated, but I’m not sure Oberweis can unseat him. And I would love to see Gov. Quinn out the door, but I don’t think it will happen. I think that there are too many questions about Bruce Rauner, his opponent, and since Rauner is pro-choice, many Catholics and other Christians will either abstain from voting for governor (which will help Gov. Quinn), or they will vote for the Libertarian candidate (generally speaking, Libertarians are against any regulations against abortion), and THAT will definitely help Gov. Quinn. I think we’re looking at four more years of high taxes and fleeing businesses with Gov. Quinn. I wish a miracle would occur and we would get a truly good candidate in Illinois. But the Chicago machine will chew the legs off of any truly good gubernatorial candidate. We’re so messed up here, and it’s a shame.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Ted Cruz and I would love to see the debates with Hillary. Its time for real change here, not some insane barely thought out social experiment based on hope.
D
DeniseNY
Guest
True, but I don’t see why electing Dr Carson would be worse than electing someone who - even though he was a US senator - had no legislative accomplishments to speak of (other than getting elected).
R
RACJ
Guest
It’s curious that some believe that Ted Cruz has narrow appeal. I guess that some remain mysteriously unalarmed by the imminent collapse of our entire political and economic systems, and the utter failure of socialist ideas. Most of the other potential GOP candidates are socialist lites. Rob
M
mary_bobo
Guest
True, but a sad commentary on the electorate that most have to have a flashy, glib candidate to interest them. Substance does not matter.
H
Havard
Guest
Glad people feel the need to laugh at or put down on my preferences.
@ishii: Condi held very influential positions and a great relationship with the President, but accounts on all sides confirm that she was an independent thinker who did not always agree with Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., and was not shy to speak her mind about them. Most people don’t know where these distinctions lie because the spotlight hasn’t been shone on her.
G
gilliam
Guest
In a democracy that is usually the case. Has been our US history anyway.
P
Path_Finder
Guest
Well said.Glad people feel the need to laugh at or put down on my preferences.
@ishii: Condi held very influential positions and a great relationship with the President, but accounts on all sides confirm that she was an independent thinker who did not always agree with Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., and was not shy to speak her mind about them. Most people don’t know where these distinctions lie because the spotlight hasn’t been shone on her.
- Status