Originally Posted by
Mike_ratliff
That's the key right there...
I hope you guys will forgive my views, But if you throw away names, race, gender, and religion, political affilitation, and instead look at the candidates for what their past shows, who would you pick?
candidate #1 Lawyer, Has expressed radical views, has worked for known communists, Senior Thesis from college has been hidden from public view at the request of the white house. Involved in multiple scandals and investigations, although never formally charged... Used government status to obtain and purchase property in order to establish residency, and qualify for public office candidate is currently occupying. First elected into office in 2001, but claims to have much more experience. has made promises that are contradictory, and likely impossible.
candidate #2 Lawyer, good charisma, an admitted user of alcohol cocaine and marijuana (in his/her teens)... has made promises that are contradictory, and likely impossible. Pacifist views are well documented, and almost to the point of being extremist. Our enemies will probably have a field day if elected. Has held office longer than candidate #1
known assosiates of questionable view points and influence.
candidate #3 Not a lawyer...history of honorable service to this country, long history of bringing political reform. willing to cross party lines for the greater good. The only candidate with real long term political experience. Not making contradictory promises, not claiming "extra" experience. was involved in one small scandal in the 80s, didn't try to cover it up and was cleared of any wrong doing.
I really did try to dig up dirt for this on candidate #3... :shrug:
any guess on who they are?
