Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by LadyEagle, May 21, 2012.
What do you think? I think it's a pretty cool idea.
Some good choices
I like Allan West but not for VP yet. First heard of him years ago while as a commander in Iraq he used enhanced interrogation on a prisoner, a pistol in the face! Worked but West was sent home.
Paul Ryan for Secretary of Treasury!
I have thought for years that the nominee should announce his selections for cabinet well before the election.
Sounds good on paper, but will never happen.
There are some people in there I would not want. One is Sarah Palin who I would not want in any form of government position. I have no respect for her at all. She claims to be a Christian but her values say differently.
Second is General David Petraeus. He has made it clear to me that he is a yes man selling his soul to the highest bidder. I base that on him supporting out of the closet homosexuality in the military.
As toPam Bondi no way. She is part of the establishment that sponsors corrupt government.
The rest maybe but some I would want to know more about their political beliefs.
I know, she is hiding behind sin she has not dealt with.
First impression is that they are good picks.
Every one of them is a great idea.:thumbs:
One of the best parts would be the quandary of the dems as they tried to find all the skeletons of this many at one time. :laugh:
Much easier if all they need to concentrate on is Romney & Veep.
I think Romney would be wise to keep Hillary on as SOS; she's done a magnificent job.
She has already stated that even if the current President wins she will not serve another term with him so there is little reason to believe that she would serve under another President. I believe that she is setting herself to run in the 2016 election.
Secondly there is nothing good in regards to the politics of Hilary Clinton. She is just another socialist. If Mitt Romney wins and if he is wise he will clean house and not bring old baggage on board with him.
Irregardless, the fact remains she has kept us from even more economically catastrophic war, and has not kowtowed to Likud. It's yet to be seen if Romney will follow that path.
I am not sure exactly how she has done that since our spending has increased even though we have basically left Iraq as far a military action is concerned. The costs should have went down if she was saving us money.
In fact her mouth actually got us in deeper trouble with our allies when the papers were leaked about her, as well as others, behind the back stabbing of them. I seriously doubt that was forgiven without some monetary considerations.
Hopefully once she leaves after this election hopefully she will never again be put into any political office as she is just bad news waiting to spring on the nation and world. Right now she is at least being contained.
I never thought I'd be saying this, but I don't agree with your assessment of her. But then again, compared up against her boss she looks like a....well, a lot better than him. Probably better than Romney in the long run. That's just how blurred the line between the two parties have become, sad to say.
How much you think an all out war with Iran is going to cost?
Can you give some links to this? I'd seriously like to know about it, this is news to me.
[SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0]I understand. I am just trying to think of some reason to point me to her based on her political ambitions and beliefs. Maybe I missed something about her in her supporting abortion even though she says she would not so it, bigger government, socialist agendas.
She supports the Kyoto protocol, releasing oil from the reserve, higher taxes, cap and trade, is against drilling in the artic reserve.
She stated this in her book which was a quote but she supported;
"The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation." She is against strong penalties on illegals and wants to make them citizens.
So unless someone can show me how this woman could be good for this country and the fundamentals it is built on I have no use for her agenda, but for those who do have at it.
I UNDERSTAND. AS I SAID, I NEVER THOUGHT I'D BE SAYING THAT ABOUT HER. SHE LOOKS GOOD UP AGAINST WHAT WE'VE HAD! AND, SHE'S KEPT US OUT OF ANOTHER ECONOMICALLY CATASTROPHIC WAR.
But, if you're one of these crackpot right wingnut cases that are convinced it's the endtimes/last days and it's useless to think/plan for the future because there is no future someone like Hillary as SOS doesn't fit into your scheme of things.
Personally, I like her.
 In short, I think she has actually had the welfare of our Union in mind while performing the duties of Secretary of State.
She is all yours, but we are in the last days and have been for 2000 years.
She has been busy not dealing with her sin of depression.
I often agree with you but not this time. Specifically, I would strongly prefer that most of the people listed NOT be on his staff.
That being said, that is the problem with such a strategy. It simply creates way too much division internally and also creates additional targets for the opposition. Plus, there is all the time and effort to properly vet each of the candidates.