Giuliani?

[packow]

From what I've heard, Giuliani is the GOP frontrunner for the candidacy, well in front of McCain. He's not the most conservative guy in the world, but his acheivements are impressive. He turned the crime-ridden New York City into one of the safest cities in the country and proved himself a natural leader after 9/11.

I wonder why he isn't talked about nearly as much as McCain, Obama, or Hilary. I mean, he IS the most likely candidate to get the Republican nomination at the moment by a considerable margin. Personally I'd feel more comfortable with him leading the country then any of the other candidates.

[Korriken]

I believe he has my vote... unless something major happens.. like... he dies or something.

[JakeHero]

Guiliani isn't talked about much in the media because he isn't a democrat.

[Gunter45]

At 3/29/07 10:49 PM, JakeHero wrote: Guiliani isn't talked about much in the media because he isn't a democrat.

Or because he's riddled with scandal. Also, the reason why the two prominant Democratic candidates are getting a lot of press is because one's black and the other is a woman and are, thus, media-friendly. Personally, I don't like either Giuliani or McCain. Of all the Republican candidates, I like Romney. The only thing about him I don't really like is the fact that he's Mormon, however, he seems to be rather willing to downplay it, so that's a relative non-issue in my mind.

[cellardoor6]

At 3/30/07 01:01 AM, Gunter45 wrote: Personally, I don't like either Giuliani or McCain. Of all the Republican candidates, I like Romney. The only thing about him I don't really like is the fact that he's Mormon, however, he seems to be rather willing to downplay it, so that's a relative non-issue in my mind.

That's pretty messed up.

"I don't like him because he's Mormon"

It seems someone like you would feel more comfortable voting for the likes of... perhaps Brownback or maybe Duncan Hunter.

[Tancrisism]

At 3/30/07 01:12 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: It seems someone like you would feel more comfortable voting for the likes of... perhaps Brownback or maybe Duncan Hunter.

That's pretty messed up.

"Someone like you".

[ironzealot]

I like both Giuliani and Romney, I'm not the biggest fan of McCain however. Both Giuliani and Romney are socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. McCain is a bit too fiscally liberal for my tastes.

Being a libertarian this is as close to my actual views as I'm likely to see in a mainstream presidential candidate. Plus Giuliani has the added bonus of being tough on violent crime.

So he's got my vote at the moment, and I couldn't give less of a damn about his failed marriages or his appearing in drag on SNL. I'm actually happy about these facts. It shows he's not just a pretentious political drone like all the other candidates on both the republican and democratic sides.

As for the democratic ticket, I think I would prefer hillary. Simply for the reason that hillary is a politician and a whore for the polls. Obama is too principled and I actually think he would try to implement his ultra-leftist economic policies. Hillary is too much of a politician to do something like that, which is why I would feel safer with the economy in her hands rather then Obama's

Oh, and enough about the whole "ZOMG!!!1 he's black!" and "ZOMG!!!1 she's a woman!" shit. A presidential election is far too important to be used to make a statement about diversity and tolerance in america.

Vote based on policy, not appearance.

[Gunter45]

At 3/30/07 01:12 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: That's pretty messed up.

"I don't like him because he's Mormon"

So you're saying I'm messed up for not liking the fact that a Presidential candidate's religious views don't agree with my own? So would it also be messed up to not vote for someone for their stance on welfare, defense, or abortion? Also, the fact of the matter is that the Book of Mormon said that the moon was made of green cheese before they changed it. It also had some pretty racist stuff and, come on, white Native Americans? If you want to have some faith in something, that's cool, but I mean there's stuff in the Book of Mormon that are just out and out lies that have been definitively disproven.

It seems someone like you would feel more comfortable voting for the likes of... perhaps Brownback or maybe Duncan Hunter.

No, because I like Romney's platform better and, as I said, the fact that he happens to be a Mormon is a slight drawback; I've voted for people with more disfavorable qualities.

[cellardoor6]

At 3/30/07 01:26 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 3/30/07 01:12 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: That's pretty messed up.

"I don't like him because he's Mormon"

So you're saying I'm messed up for not liking the fact that a Presidential candidate's religious views don't agree with my own?

No, you can have whatever stance you want. But I think it's narrow minded to just say the only reason you don't like a candidate is because of their religion.

So would it also be messed up to not vote for someone for their stance on welfare, defense, or abortion?

Those are policies, not religious beliefs.

Also, the fact of the matter is that the Book of Mormon said that the moon was made of green cheese before they changed it.

You're full of shit. If you actually believe Mormons believe or once believed that then you're an imbecile.

It also had some pretty racist stuff and, come on, white Native Americans?

Misinterpretation of what Mormons believe.

Mormons believed that SOME native Americans (not necessarily what current Native Americans descended from) were ancient Israelites. That doesn't necessarily mean that they believe they were white, it's just some Mormons picture it as that.

And there is nothing in archeology that really disproves that. After all, there were hundreds of civilizations in the ancient Americas, many of which were entirely killed off. Though it is obviously nothing to base scientific belief in, it isn't a scientific impossibility either than ancient Israelites inhabited the Americas.

If you want to have some faith in something, that's cool, but I mean there's stuff in the Book of Mormon that are just out and out lies that have been definitively disproven.

Thats a fucking laugh coming from a self-proclaimed "Christian". ALL RELIGION basically has been disproven (or thought to be disproven) by science, the point of religion is faith, not validation through the studious application of sciences created by humans who are fallible.

To pick and choose, and to attack some religions for being scientifically unsound, but then refusing to deny the legitimacy of your own religion by ignoring science is entirely hypocritical.

It seems someone like you would feel more comfortable voting for the likes of... perhaps Brownback or maybe Duncan Hunter.

No, because I like Romney's platform better and, as I said, the fact that he happens to be a Mormon is a slight drawback; I've voted for people with more disfavorable qualities.

So, let me get this straight. You're an American, in a secular country with an official policy of separation of church and state. Yet you consider the religion of a candidate to be a 'drawback' even if their policies mirror your own?

That's sad.

[ironzealot]

At 3/30/07 01:26 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 3/30/07 01:12 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: That's pretty messed up.

"I don't like him because he's Mormon"

It also had some pretty racist stuff and, come on, white Native Americans? If you want to have some faith in something, that's cool, but I mean there's stuff in the Book of Mormon that are just out and out lies that have been definitively disproven.

Actually there were white native americans, archaeological evidence suggests that europeans actually migrated to north america through an ice sheet connecting greenland to canada, before the asians every arrived.

The difference is they arrived in relatively small numbers, and even came into contact with asians well before the silk road. They were either killed by the asian settlers, or were simply absorbed into their genepool.

So in a way, europeans colonists arriving in north america thousands of years later werne't conquering the continent, we were just taking it back :p

[Bolo]

At 3/30/07 01:21 AM, ironzealot wrote: Obama is too principled and I actually think he would try to implement his ultra-leftist economic policies. Hillary is too much of a politician to do something like that, which is why I would feel safer with the economy in her hands rather then Obama's

Ehh... How is it a bad ting for Obama to implement his supposed "ultra leftist" policies, which in truth, really aren't all that far to the left.

When we're over $8 trillion in debt... a tax raise is kind of a necessity to support the country's infrastructure. It's inevitable, and it's gotta happen sometime. Might as well do it ASAP, rather than waiting for more debt to pile up.

[ironzealot]

At 3/30/07 02:04 AM, Bolo wrote:

At 3/30/07 01:21 AM, ironzealot wrote: Obama is too principled and I actually think he would try to implement his ultra-leftist economic policies. Hillary is too much of a politician to do something like that, which is why I would feel safer with the economy in her hands rather then Obama's

Ehh... How is it a bad ting for Obama to implement his supposed "ultra leftist" policies, which in truth, really aren't all that far to the left.

When we're over $8 trillion in debt... a tax raise is kind of a necessity to support the country's infrastructure. It's inevitable, and it's gotta happen sometime. Might as well do it ASAP, rather than waiting for more debt to pile up.

or we could just reduce spending, how's that for a novel concept. Now please, I'm not even going to have this debate again.

I'm just going to say their isn't a credible economist in the western world who's not fiscally conservative, and leave it at that.

[cellardoor6]

At 3/30/07 02:04 AM, Bolo wrote: When we're over $8 trillion in debt... a tax raise is kind of a necessity to support the country's infrastructure.

Those are two entirely unrelated issues. You don't actually need to raise tax to pay for infrastructure just because you're in debt, it doesn't work that way.

And anyhow, just spouting out "$8 trillion in debt" doesn't put the issue in context. The US is $8 trillion in debt, but this is only 64.7% of our yearly income (GDP). $8 trillion is a huge amount of money, but this is only because the US economy is huge in the first place.

I'm sure you're unaware of the fact that US is actually less in debt than many other countries, including countries that make jabs at the US for being in debt.

For instance, Canada actually has a higher debt than we do in relation to their income.

Link

Canada's debt is 65.4% of its GDP
The US debt is 64.7% of our GDP

Other notable countries whose debt is higher in relation to their income are: Japan (176.2%), Italy (107.8%), Greece (104.6%), Portugal (67.5%), and Germany (66.8%).

It's inevitable, and it's gotta happen sometime. Might as well do it ASAP, rather than waiting for more debt to pile up.

It doesn't work that way buddy. The more taxes you pay, the less your economy grows, especially in a consumerist country like the US. If the US raised taxes, our economic growth would slow, probably go stagnant or possibly reverse. This might make more funds available to allocate to addressing debt initially, but this wouldn't reduce debt in the long run at all, especially in relation to our income. Because our income wouldn't grow at all.

Then, in the next tax season, the tax revenue would actually be lower in relative terms because the country would have grown less, and the taxable income wouldn’t have increased by much or wouldn’t have increased at all.

The thing about Reaganomics which is actually entirely true is that the less in taxes you pay in a country, the higher your tax revenue will be the next year, thereby negating the entire idea behind raising taxes in the first place.

Heres something for you to learn:

Lower tax rate = more money for consumers = more consumer spending = larger economic growth = higher subsequent tax revenue = lower tax rate. This is a GOOD perpetual economic cycle which is responsible for American economic prosperity.

Conversely...

Higher taxes = less money for consumers = less consumer spending = slower economic growth = lower tax revenue = higher taxes. This a cycle in which taxes would just get higher and higher. This is a BAD perpetual cycle that is an example of how the Soviet Union's economy collapsed.

[RedSkunk]

Giuliani isn't tall enough to be president.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Guilliani lacks the moral characteristics for a man for president.

Yes good leader, and he changed new York from a crime ridden cesspool to just a cesspool.

But he's pro-abortion, three wives, one of who he announced thier divorce to the public before to her.

I just don't like his morals.

[Elfer]

At 3/30/07 02:55 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: I just don't like his morals.

So morality trumps competence these days?

Hot damn, I'm going to be president!

[RedSkunk]

At 3/30/07 02:55 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Guilliani lacks the moral characteristics for a man for president.

Incorrect. Guiliani lacks your morals for you to vote for him. We've had presidents who are pro-choice and divorcees.

I just don't like his morals.

Better. But this doesn't answer the topic-starters question of why we don't hear much about him.

[Memorize]

At 3/30/07 07:02 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

Incorrect. Guiliani lacks your morals for you to vote for him. We've had presidents who are pro-choice and divorcees.

With that logic, I could say that murder has nothing to do with a man handling his presidency (or woman).

Wow, what astounding common sense you have here Skunk!

[packow]

I think Murder is a completely different issue from Divorces and abortion...

[Memorize]

At 3/30/07 08:21 PM, packow wrote: I think Murder is a completely different issue from Divorces and abortion...

I hate it when people try to downplay everything just so they can falsely Justify whom they elect.

But my point still stands. Some can still handle being president even if they once murdered someone.

[Freemind]

At 3/30/07 08:32 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/30/07 08:21 PM, packow wrote: I think Murder is a completely different issue from Divorces and abortion...

I hate it when people try to downplay everything just so they can falsely Justify whom they elect.

But my point still stands. Some can still handle being president even if they once murdered someone.

Yes, lets say a president murdered someone, it wouldn't prevent them from doing a good job in office. I really wouldn't like a president who murders his own citizens though. I feel that the presidents family life(Infedelity, Divorces) shouldn't have to be revealed to the public since it has nothing to do with running the presidency and no law has been broken.

[Memorize]

At 3/30/07 08:37 PM, Freemind wrote:

I feel that the presidents family life(Infedelity, Divorces) shouldn't have to be revealed to the public since it has nothing to do with running the presidency and no law has been broken.

HUZZAH!. The law! Which apparently didn't matter with Clinton's several offenses.

[Freemind]

At 3/30/07 08:40 PM, Memorize wrote: HUZZAH!. The law! Which apparently didn't matter with Clinton's several offenses.

Well, I guess not according to the senate.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 3/30/07 04:03 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 3/30/07 02:55 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

So morality trumps competence these days?

It's all in the package.

I'm not going to vote for someone that I feel lacks the morals or characterisitcs that I wish shown.

Competent or not, I would rather not vote for someont that I feel espouses negative characteristics.

[LinkManDX]

Morality =/= the ability to rule well. Does being Pro-Choice affect the ability to run a war in Iraq? Does his three wives affect any of his duties? No.