Who do you think is the SCARIEST candidate?

C

cnorman18

New member
Who do you think is the scariest, most dangerous candidate running for President?

I suspect I'll be swimming against the tide here, but I think John Edwards is WAY scarier than either Hillary or Obama.

Of course, this is kind of like arguing about which of the Three Stooges is the dumbest, but there you are.

Edwards is trying to out-Left everybody in the field, and he's moved so far out there that he's orbiting Neptune. I think his next move may be French-kissing Hugo Chavez.

What do you think?

(BTW, the dumbest Stooge would have to be Larry.)
 
If Ron Paul were elected - you'd be pleasantly surprised - we'd actually live in a constitutional republic for a change.

My answer: Dennis Kucinich - FTW by a landslide.

If Karl Marx were alive, he would tell Kucinich to tone it down a little and move a bit to the right. :eek:
 
If Ron Paul were elected, the masses would be in a state of revolt within a matter of months.

America is not ready for a return of personal responsibility and self-reliance.
 
I think Edwards, to a certain extent, is just acting that way to attract the left wing of the Democrat party. Remember, this is still the primary season where canidates are trying to get party nomination. As far as scariest: Hillary and especially Rudy. They are very power hungry. Some others may be persuing certain ideologies, but I don't see them seeking authority to the same level.
 
Huckabee. He seems like an old fashioned bible belt conservatives who would like us to follow Iran's lead and embrace theocracy. Granted he would use a different religion on which to base his theocracy...
 
Giuliani...he strikes me as the epitome of fascism. Although Romney isn't far behind.

Hillary and Obama don't scare me because they are an evil that we know. An evil that we know is an evil that we can thwart.

On the other hand, candidates like Romney and Giuliani have the backing of some who actually think that they will be less harmful than Clinton or Obama. This enables the possibility that they will be allowed to greater harm than Clinton or Obama could...a la George W. Bush.

I think that in the long run...John Kerry would have been less of a threat to this nation because he wouldn't have been ALLOWED to do the things that Bush has been allowed to do.
 
This is a very bad crop. Hillary, Edwards and Obama are all ghastly. Rudy is both ghastly and downright weird.

Thompson isn't half bad, Richardson is actually decent too. Dr. Ron would be great.

Hillary scares me the most though. I think she's very likely the most malevolently evil candidate in the field on either side, and may rank right up there as one of the worst that's ever tried for the big office.

Obama isn't competent enough to be dangerous. Rudy (and no, I can't be bothered to look up the spelling of that moron's last name) is plain nuts.
 
I think she's very likely the most malevolently evil candidate in the field on either side
Click to expand...

This sort of comment pops up from time to time. What is it that makes you guys say such a thing? I understand that she may be personally offensive to some groups, but evil? based on what?
 
How can Paul be scary? He seems like everyone's kooky great uncle that listens to the short wave radio broadcasts too much and generally avoids reality. You know the guy, everyone would explain away his behavior as early onset alzhiemers except that he's been that way since he spent a few years in the military back when he was in his twenties
 
Justme: during the last Clinton regime some of the "insider staffers" talked, VERY quietly, about what it was like to be anywhere near Hillary. Even some Secret Service folk, and it's VERY unusual that they say anything, ever.

The rumblings...were downright disturbing. Everybody was just terrified of her. "Queen bitch" doesn't begin.

When you combine that sort of attitude with (strongly) Socialistic tendencies, the mindset that becomes visible is "all you fools need controlling"...and that's putting the *best* possible spin on. It's the sort of thing that can lead to huge piles of corpses.

Then look at the various scandals during the first Clinton administration (and prior, back in Arkansas) and Hillary's name gets mixed up in trouble if anything more often than Bill - from Whitewater (and prior) on forward. And it's not stopping:

http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=d49fc9b7-6f11-4c1d-a6bd-29468fa58196

(Note first item.)

Look...if you study the (Bill?) Clinton Presidency, you get a CLEAR picture of Hillary very active in...well dayum, pretty much everything. Bill was laid back, cared more about *getting* laid than almost anything else, while the real driving energy was coming out of Hillary.

She's baaaaaad news, guys. Hates and fears "commoners", corrupt as they come, driven like few on the planet, and things she's smarter than everybody else.
 
You have a very tough row to hoe there if you think people will fear Hillary because she was actually in charge during Bill's presidency. A very large majority of people believe we were a better run country then.
 
A lot of things were better then but only because we had for six out of the eight years a congress who would limit the power of the president. For the first six years of Bush, congress said "whatever you want". Only the first two years of Clinton were bad.
 
Among the Dems, Obama because his views are most statist and he is most charming and well-spoken. None of the Dems scare me all that much because if any of them wins, many Republicans in Congress will rediscover the virtues of limiting government power, especially in the executive branch.

Among the Repubs, Rudy because it looks like Republicans will put up with almost anything he says about guns, and his election would mean another four years of no one in Congress (save possibly Ron Paul) who seriously wants to question executive authority and has the power to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top