Republican candidates for 2012
-
Skyhook79
"Bingo. When you're pitching to your own team, you tend to lob them over the middle of the plate more often."
O'Reily is a Republican? Did you watch the interview? O'Reily didn't agree with him on hardly anything but Cain defended his positions well.
"Umm ... he has. Do you know why you haven't seen it? Because it hasn't been well-covered by the media.
Paul has been vetted over his positions practically ad nauseum, and if you'll notice, when he's asked a question, he can't STOP talking about his position and plan."
Here we go with the "media isn't covering" Ron Paul. If thats the case then how could his positions been vetted "ad nauseum"? -
I Wear Pants
Are you seriously trying to say that Bill O'Reilly is not a Republican? That's a pretty ridiculous statement.Skyhook79;928390 wrote:"Bingo. When you're pitching to your own team, you tend to lob them over the middle of the plate more often."
O'Reily is a Republican? Did you watch the interview? O'Reily didn't agree with him on hardly anything but Cain defended his positions well.
"Umm ... he has. Do you know why you haven't seen it? Because it hasn't been well-covered by the media.
Paul has been vetted over his positions practically ad nauseum, and if you'll notice, when he's asked a question, he can't STOP talking about his position and plan."
Here we go with the "media isn't covering" Ron Paul. If thats the case then how could his positions been vetted "ad nauseum"? -
bigdaddy2003
Yeah, he isn't a Republican. If you watch his show you can easily see that he isn't. He just gets it pinned on him because he is on Fox. -
O-Trap
Point out were O'Reilly disagreed with him on issues. Admittedly, I didn't see the whole thing, but at worst, O'Reilly just asked Cain to expand on his positions ... hardly a disagreement.Skyhook79;928390 wrote:"Bingo. When you're pitching to your own team, you tend to lob them over the middle of the plate more often."
O'Reily is a Republican? Did you watch the interview? O'Reily didn't agree with him on hardly anything but Cain defended his positions well.
However, if you've watched any of several encounters that Paul has had with BillO, you'd know he has no problem at all taking on O'Reilly, despite BillO's methodology of resorting to trying to speak over you when he doesn't agree with you.
Non-publicized interviews and the like do happen, and with the wonderful advent of the Internet, much of it can be found.Skyhook79;928390 wrote:Here we go with the "media isn't covering" Ron Paul. If thats the case then how could his positions been vetted "ad nauseum"?
Not to mention the fact that the minimal media coverage adds up over time when you're as consistent on your platforms as Paul has been ... those same platforms that several other Republicans have now adopted as well, since he was dead on regarding the collapse of the economy in a time when such predictions were considered "fringe."
By all means, pretend he gets the same attention if it helps you justify backing the Republican flavor of the week candidates, most of which are logically inconsistent in their positions in one way or another. After all, the party-line Republican presidents of late haven't contributed to digging us into the mess we're in, right? -
I Wear Pants
Then what is he? What major disagreements does he have with Republican positions?bigdaddy2003;928408 wrote:Yeah, he isn't a Republican. If you watch his show you can easily see that he isn't. He just gets it pinned on him because he is on Fox. -
O-Trap
Maybe he's a non-Republican that simply agrees with the Republican party line the majority of the time.I Wear Pants;928429 wrote:Then what is he? What major disagreements does he have with Republican positions? -
bigdaddy2003
He's an Independent. He's definitely more conservative than he is liberal but it's not like he is just sitting on his show bragging up Republicans. That is why I have to laugh when people lump him in with people like Hannity. I assume he gets targeted because he is the number 1 show and it's on Fox.
-
Cleveland Buck
Well, he's bloodthirsty and while he complains a lot about big government he's always got something the government should be doing more of, so he's pretty much Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, or Rick Perry.I Wear Pants;928429 wrote:Then what is he? What major disagreements does he have with Republican positions? -
majorspark
I mentioned before on another post on this thread that I had a problem with this. Cain was sucked into the fear surrounding that sudden crisis. He bought into the idea that stemming major and instant economic pain on lower income and middle income Americans would justify propping up some of these failed entities. From what I understand Cain believes government policies and manipulation of the tax code helped facilitate that collapse. He believed at the time that average Americans should not take the hit along with the banks.Cleveland Buck;928231 wrote:Yeah, Cain is the man. Here he is smacking down free market capitalists while extolling the virtues of government owned banks.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/flashback-2008-herman-cain-praised-tarp-chided-free-market-purist
He had hoped it would buy enough time for major governmental policy change to take place. He was wrong and has admitted such (at least in trusting the feds to do the right thing). Personally I think he was foolish for thinking they would apolitically disperse the money. TARP became nothing more than a slush fund to save or reward those groping Uncle Sam's nuts. Failing individuals or corporations should be dealt with in a constitutional manner through bankruptcy law. Cain has said in the future he will allow that to happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSm2d6DqkUs -
O-Trap
There is certainly a spectrum when it comes to where one's views lie. He's MUCH more Republican-leaning than he is Democrat-leaning. That doesn't mean he's to the extreme, but if he's truly an Indy, he does a good job masking it (admittedly, maybe it's the questions he asks that are the cause).bigdaddy2003;928438 wrote:He's an Independent. He's definitely more conservative than he is liberal but it's not like he is just sitting on his show bragging up Republicans. That is why I have to laugh when people lump him in with people like Hannity. I assume he gets targeted because he is the number 1 show and it's on Fox. -
majorspark
Cain has taken on the loons on MSNBC. None of which agree with anything he says.I Wear Pants;928263 wrote:O'Reilly doesn't disagree with pretty much everything Cain says either. He does with Paul. -
bigdaddy2003
Oh yeah he is definitely leaning more to the right than the left but what I'm saying is he doesn't just come out and give the Republicans softballs and nail the Democrats with hard questions. He's fair to everyone. Well at least since I have been watching the show. (Since 09 or so)O-Trap;928450 wrote:There is certainly a spectrum when it comes to where one's views lie. He's MUCH more Republican-leaning than he is Democrat-leaning. That doesn't mean he's to the extreme, but if he's truly an Indy, he does a good job masking it (admittedly, maybe it's the questions he asks that are the cause). -
majorspark
Does not matter. Paul needs to do something to gain traction. Whining about not getting press is not going to do it. Take on O'reilly don't put up with his filibuster bullshit and own his ass. And do it over and over again if necessary.O-Trap;928377 wrote:Declines = can't handle? That's an Olympic long jump to conclusion there, given that Paul has been on O'Reilly SEVERAL times.
Could it be that Paul was simply in a different state and had other engagements that were more important? -
O-Trap
I've not seen that, and I'd like to. I can always search it, but if you happen to have a link offhand, would you mind sharing?majorspark;928452 wrote:Cain has taken on the loons on MSNBC. None of which agree with anything he says.
I don't dislike Cain at all. I think he's more palatable than any other Republican "top-tier" candidates of the week in recent months (Romney, Perry, or Bachmann) because he is able to show that he's actually started looking at practical applications of fleshing out some economic solutions ... ones that free the market up instead of further restricting and regulating it.
I still have problems with enough other positions of his that I don't think I could vote for him, but that doesn't mean I detest the guy. -
O-Trap
The questions, in this sense, are all fairly similar. I suppose it's his reaction to the answers given that seems to tip his hand.bigdaddy2003;928455 wrote:Oh yeah he is definitely leaning more to the right than the left but what I'm saying is he doesn't just come out and give the Republicans softballs and nail the Democrats with hard questions. He's fair to everyone. Well at least since I have been watching the show. (Since 09 or so)
I never called the guy Hannity, though. I've tried to just forget about that guy.
Paul really doesn't address the lack of press unless he's asked about it (though the people who notice it will certainly point it out). I can't really consider that whining.majorspark;928456 wrote:Does not matter. Paul needs to do something to gain traction. Whining about not getting press is not going to do it. Take on O'reilly don't put up with his filibuster bullshit and own his ass. And do it over and over again if necessary.
As far as his need for gaining traction by playing the politics game, that's probably the biggest reason he hasn't been more seriously considered. The guy doesn't seem to try to play that game as much. Honestly, I'm surprised more people don't find that refreshing. From that standpoint, he's the antithesis of Rick Perry.
As for when he HAS been on, it's been fun to watch.
-
majorspark
Democrats and Republicans always say the economy is in the shitter when the opposite party is in power (especially in an election year). So I would not say the democrats had any great foreknowledge in September 2008. I did not see any articles from Ron Paul predicting the economy was going to take a shit a week after that article was written. Paul has been calling it for a decade or so but hardly clairvoyant.Cleveland Buck;928234 wrote:His economic knowledge is unparalleled. Here he is showing the Democrats how dumb they were for claiming the economy was in trouble in September of 2008.
http://004eeb5.netsolhost.com/hc126.htm
Like I said before. Ron Paul is not outside of my vote. My views are between his and Cains. Slightly more towards Paul on the domestic side. Cain on foreign policy issues. We are not going to get everything we want overnight. Short of revolution we are going to have to turn this ship around and ships don't do 180's. In this primary I am look for the most viable candidate that holds a lot of my views. If Paul can get some traction. I could vote for him.
Cain's 9-9-9 plan is what I like. I don't like that it adds a national sales tax but if it get the federal government the hell out of manipulating the tax code I am all for it. You can't run a business worrying about the next government subsidy, tax credit, or whatever the hell the feds want to "encourage" your business to do. Tell be what I got to pay you off my bottom line anything else piss off. -
I Wear Pants
The Republicans were even saying the economy was in bad shape though. Hell Mccain left the campaign trail to tend to economic issues they thought it was that bad. That Cain thought everything was rosy shows that he knew nothing about what was going on.majorspark;928478 wrote:Democrats and Republicans always say the economy is in the shitter when the opposite party is in power (especially in an election year). So I would not say the democrats had any great foreknowledge in September 2008. I did not see any articles from Ron Paul predicting the economy was going to take a shit a week after that article was written. Paul has been calling it for a decade or so but hardly clairvoyant.
Like I said before. Ron Paul is not outside of my vote. My views are between his and Cains. Slightly more towards Paul on the domestic side. Cain on foreign policy issues. We are not going to get everything we want overnight. Short over revolution we are going to have to turn this ship around and ships don't do 180's. In this primary I am look for the most viable candidate that holds a lot of my views. If Paul can get some traction. I could vote for him.
Cain's 9-9-9 plan is what I like. I don't like that it adds a national sales tax but if it get the federal government the hell out of manipulating the tax code I am all for it. You can't run a business worrying about the next government subsidy, tax credit, or whatever the hell the feds want to "encourage" your business to do. Tell be what I got to pay you off my bottom line anything else piss off. -
majorspark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wmpBXFJLqwO-Trap;928462 wrote:I've not seen that, and I'd like to. I can always search it, but if you happen to have a link offhand, would you mind sharing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctd1DnVRUSA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dq1kHXqHo8&feature=related -
Cleveland Buck
I understand what you are saying, but what do we even know about Cain's foreign policy? He says he won't know anything until he is elected. What kind of bullshit cop out is that? And his 9-9-9 plan will never stop them from manipulating the tax code because it will never get passed by Congress. It is a regressive tax because of the sales tax, and it is nowhere close to revenue neutral, so unless he plans to end the wars immediately his deficits would make Obama's look like child's play. It is good that he came out with a plan, but I wouldn't count on that plan ever becoming law.majorspark;928478 wrote:Democrats and Republicans always say the economy is in the shitter when the opposite party is in power (especially in an election year). So I would not say the democrats had any great foreknowledge in September 2008. I did not see any articles from Ron Paul predicting the economy was going to take a shit a week after that article was written. Paul has been calling it for a decade or so but hardly clairvoyant.
Like I said before. Ron Paul is not outside of my vote. My views are between his and Cains. Slightly more towards Paul on the domestic side. Cain on foreign policy issues. We are not going to get everything we want overnight. Short of revolution we are going to have to turn this ship around and ships don't do 180's. In this primary I am look for the most viable candidate that holds a lot of my views. If Paul can get some traction. I could vote for him.
Cain's 9-9-9 plan is what I like. I don't like that it adds a national sales tax but if it get the federal government the hell out of manipulating the tax code I am all for it. You can't run a business worrying about the next government subsidy, tax credit, or whatever the hell the feds want to "encourage" your business to do. Tell be what I got to pay you off my bottom line anything else piss off.
And Ron Paul predicted the collapse in 2001 because he understood how it would happen and explained it. He saw the cheap Fed credit rushing into housing and he knew how the GSEs would keep pushing for lower lending standards. It's not like he just randomly said we were going to have a recession in the future. He described the exact problems we had/have years before anyone else in Washington even knew there was a problem. -
O-Trap
-
majorspark
Cain has given his basic ideas on foreign policy. I don't agree with everything (mainly that defense can not be cut and still accomplish what his goals are). I like his stance on Iran. It pretty obvious that he would not use military force preemptively to stop them from getting a nuke. He is smart and not showing that hand to Iran. Paul puts that hand on full display thinking Iran will play nice in the sandbox. Cain emphasized focusing on defense.Cleveland Buck;928501 wrote:I understand what you are saying, but what do we even know about Cain's foreign policy? He says he won't know anything until he is elected. What kind of bullshit cop out is that?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1202710274001/herman-cain-on-foreign-policy--national-security-issues/
If Cain were elected president he would have a mandate for his 9-9-9 plan. Its what he has focused his whole campaign on. If Cain had balls and beleived the majority backed him, and he had a mandate, he could veto any legislation that attatched amendments that manipulated his plan. That said it would never pass congress in that pure form without people literally storming the gates of Washington demanding it. On the same token congress would have none of Ron Pauls's economic plan either. It would take the same circumstances if not more to get his ideas through congress.Cleveland Buck;928501 wrote:And his 9-9-9 plan will never stop them from manipulating the tax code because it will never get passed by Congress. It is a regressive tax because of the sales tax, and it is nowhere close to revenue neutral, so unless he plans to end the wars immediately his deficits would make Obama's look like child's play. It is good that he came out with a plan, but I wouldn't count on that plan ever becoming law.
I agree. But the day and hour no one can predict. The economy ebbs and flows even before a major downturn. Cain writing an article that provided positive data at the time only looks bad in hindsight.Cleveland Buck;928501 wrote:And Ron Paul predicted the collapse in 2001 because he understood how it would happen and explained it. He saw the cheap Fed credit rushing into housing and he knew how the GSEs would keep pushing for lower lending standards. It's not like he just randomly said we were going to have a recession in the future. He described the exact problems we had/have years before anyone else in Washington even knew there was a problem. -
believer
Ron Paul isn't the only "economic clairvoyant" to see collapse coming. In fact if the truth be known my guess is most reasonably intelligent politicians (regardless of party), most Wall Streeters, many Main Streeters, and the average OC poster saw it coming.Cleveland Buck;928501 wrote:And Ron Paul predicted the collapse in 2001 because he understood how it would happen and explained it. He saw the cheap Fed credit rushing into housing and he knew how the GSEs would keep pushing for lower lending standards. It's not like he just randomly said we were going to have a recession in the future. He described the exact problems we had/have years before anyone else in Washington even knew there was a problem.
The fact that Paul possesses economic common-sense doesn't necessarily translate to him being the answer to our fiscal insanity anymore than Obama was going to bring us "hope & change." Would I sleep better at night if Paul were in the WH over Obama? Absolutely, but I'm only 60% behind Paul's foreign policy ideas.
The fact is Paul has a solid, hardcore support group. But short of some grassroots political miracle, he will not get the Republican nomination. If he subsequently attempts to run as an independent as usual, his support group will waste their votes and, by default, support Obama and give him 4 more years of ineptitude and Big Gubmint is good gubmint thinking.
That's the part about the Paulists that leaves me scratching my head. -
I Wear Pants
See I agree with almost all of Paul's foreign policy but not some of his domestic policy. Which parts of his foreign policy do you disagree with?believer;928704 wrote:Ron Paul isn't the only "economic clairvoyant" to see collapse coming. In fact if the truth be known my guess is most reasonably intelligent politicians (regardless of party), most Wall Streeters, many Main Streeters, and the average OC poster saw it coming.
The fact that Paul possesses economic common-sense doesn't necessarily translate to him being the answer to our fiscal insanity anymore than Obama was going to bring us "hope & change." Would I sleep better at night if Paul were in the WH over Obama? Absolutely, but I'm only 60% behind Paul's foreign policy ideas.
The fact is Paul has a solid, hardcore support group. But short of some grassroots political miracle, he will not get the Republican nomination. If he subsequently attempts to run as an independent as usual, his support group will waste their votes and, by default, support Obama and give him 4 more years of ineptitude and Big Gubmint is good gubmint thinking.
That's the part about the Paulists that leaves me scratching my head. -
believer
For starters I think it's naive to think that withdrawing from the Middle East will decrease the likelihood of terrorism...IE: If we play nice in the sandbox the Sharia Boys will stop throwing sand in our eyes and call us pals. uh huhI Wear Pants;929113 wrote:See I agree with almost all of Paul's foreign policy but not some of his domestic policy. Which parts of his foreign policy do you disagree with?
"Gosh, if we weren't over there meddling in Middle Eastern affairs guys like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be our friends." riiiiight -
I Wear Pants
Ah so you'd rather play the "if we kill enough of the insurgents we win" game then I take it?believer;929395 wrote:For starters I think it's naive to think that withdrawing from the Middle East will decrease the likelihood of terrorism...IE: If we play nice in the sandbox the Sharia Boys will stop throwing sand in our eyes and call us pals. uh huh
"Gosh, if we weren't over there meddling in Middle Eastern affairs guys like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be our friends." riiiiight
There are reasons that people in the middle east don't like us, these reasons don't excuse the terrible things these people do to their people or to US soldiers/citizens but I think it's important to establish why they do these things. It isn't because they hate our freedoms.
Ahmadinejad and Iran probably don't like us because we propped up a brutal dictator in their country. Ahmadinejad is at least as big as an asshole as the dude we propped up but it's understandable why some Iranians would not view us in a good light.
Great example of how meddling in other people's affairs caused problems for us down the line.
Do you think the likelihood of terrorism is reduced by us being in the Middle East?
