posted on June 2, 2002 08:59:32 PM new
Of all the CURRENT ones, who do you trust the most? The one you feel "safe" at the helm? The one you would LIKE to see in office? The one that makes you (even though worried at current affairs), but feel "at ease" knowing he/she is "in position" to handle whatever may happen?
edited to clarify better.
[ edited by hepburn101 on Jun 2, 2002 09:00 PM ]
posted on June 2, 2002 09:49:41 PM new
John Cusack? How about Jesse Ventura? Him, I dont know a lot about yet, since they all "change" their tune once in office...but so far, no bad vibes from him.
posted on June 2, 2002 09:52:34 PM new
I think it would be Great if he "Ran"...but even with a Pretty Good Grass Roots Interest, he's declined it time and time again...I think he see's the Negatives in the Job, especially after Clinton. Too Bad, I think he would have had a chance.
posted on June 2, 2002 09:55:49 PM new
The ones that protest the loudest are the ones that are secretly planning to do what they are protesting they will never do. When Bush's time is over, watch those who said NO, I DONT PLAN TO, or NO, I DONT WANT to all of a sudden have a change of heart "for the good of the people". Betcha.
posted on June 3, 2002 01:04:25 AM new
Maybe I should run.
I would retire to my ranch (I'd have to get one but that should be no problem.) and not do a thing for 4 years. Since Congress would starve to death before they could agree to send out for lunch any change would have to come from the courts. I figure that the politicians have done enough that a 4 year rest from doing shouldn't be any problem.
People could get on with their lives without the interferance. There would be more room in the paper for sports scores and other things people really care about. If an enamy waded ashore invading say Miami I figure they would be caught on the streets after dark and be doomed the first night anyway. Next day there would be a few helmets and other bits the locals didn't want to clean up. Anything that happened overseas the locals would just have to kill each other without our help.
posted on June 3, 2002 10:25:07 AM new
Bill Thomas of CA, until he voted to use millions to upgrade housing on military bases instead of letting the adjacent communities (private enterprise) house the military.
As a landlord with apartments adjacent to a major military base, the Clinton years of decreasing the military really hurt. Many, many apartment complexes in our area were foreclosed. When several other bases closed, at least we got some of the extra squadrons. Those of us with empty apartments needing to be filled just to make the mortgage payments were waiting and eager. Instead, Thomas et al, passed a bill to spend millions to upgrade military housing. Totally unnecessary waste of taxpayer funds when the units were available 1 or 2 miles off base.
Not my name on ebay.
[ edited by Valleygirl on Jun 3, 2002 10:26 AM ]
posted on June 3, 2002 10:48:45 AM new
I hear ya Valleygirl. I had units in Oxnard. But that was before what you are talking about. Still, I loved it when we had military living in our units.
posted on June 3, 2002 11:00:25 AM new
Good question Hepburn, but I don't think the political arena has room for real honest, decent people. Carter's a good example. Geez, even Ralph Nader owns oil shares. It's becoming a cult imo.
I sure think it's a bad sign when it's hard to pick ONE possible candidate.
