EPTI mean, case in point:
Herman Cain - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
karlmengsk
Canada230 Posts
I mean, case in point: | ||
|
ShadowDrgn
United States2497 Posts
On October 15 2011 08:12 Reedjr wrote: To say Ron Paul is not electable is to say you were awake in 2008. Granted, he has a massive amount of internet support, but that has historically translated very poorly to actual voters coming out for him in the primaries. Historically? He's only run for President once since the web has existed, and he has an order of magnitude more support this year than he did in 2008. Also, the Internet as a platform for Presidential campaigns is at most 12 years old, and 2000 barely counts. Howard Dean was the front-runner for the Democratic party in 2004 with a strong base of Internet supporters; his campaign only tanked because the corporate media doctored a video of him after the Iowa caucus that made him look crazy and then ran it twice an hour for a few weeks. There simply isn't enough data to suggest that Internet support is worthless in an actual election. As for his electability, he's been elected ~12 times to the House of Representatives. I don't think his district in Texas is significantly different than the average Republican primary voter. | ||
|
ilovelings
Argentina776 Posts
| ||
|
LaLLsc2
United States502 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 15 2011 11:48 ShadowDrgn wrote: Historically? He's only run for President once since the web has existed, and he has an order of magnitude more support this year than he did in 2008. Also, the Internet as a platform for Presidential campaigns is at most 12 years old, and 2000 barely counts. Howard Dean was the front-runner for the Democratic party in 2004 with a strong base of Internet supporters; his campaign only tanked because the corporate media doctored a video of him after the Iowa caucus that made him look crazy and then ran it twice an hour for a few weeks. There simply isn't enough data to suggest that Internet support is worthless in an actual election. As for his electability, he's been elected ~12 times to the House of Representatives. I don't think his district in Texas is significantly different than the average Republican primary voter. doctored video? What are you basing that on? | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 15 2011 12:09 LaLLsc2 wrote: Herman Cain would be a terrible choice.. 9 - 9 - 9 gives the government a new avenue to tax the people, one that will be abused.. He supports the wars in the middle east and he doesnt give two craps about the Federal reserve or the war on drugs. Status quo more of the same.. get this pizza guy out of here. 9-9-9 is not perfect, but it would mean a complete re-writing of the tax code, which is mostly what has caused destructive collusion between government and business. It would simplify things and be something no other president has accomplished. | ||
|
neversummer
United States156 Posts
| ||
|
BushidoSnipr
United States910 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15732 Posts
On October 15 2011 13:11 BushidoSnipr wrote: If this guy gets elected as president, I will leave the country. Don't worry, its just another Republican candidate in the race for the sake of making Mitt Romney look less crazy once everyone sees the alternatives :p | ||
|
Holophonist
United States297 Posts
On October 15 2011 10:14 karlmengsk wrote: Seeing as how he's a complete moron who talks out of his *** he'll probably win handily. I mean, case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPiSzCDChX4 I don't get what you're referring to in that video TBH. | ||
|
Holophonist
United States297 Posts
On October 15 2011 12:39 neversummer wrote: I think everyone else has already touched on this.... but this is a man who rejects reading "long" bills, rejects the notion of admitting Muslims to his cabinet for fear they may be terrorists, and whose only accreditation derives from managing a pizza company. Anyone who believes Herman Cain is a viable candidate for the presidency is nothing more than delusional. You've gotta be kidding me. No politician reads the bills. That isn't to say that I agree with that. But rather, if you think Cain is unique in that respect, you're the delusional one. | ||
|
Lesser
Canada33 Posts
| ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
kingcoyote
United States546 Posts
On October 15 2011 13:31 Holophonist wrote: You've gotta be kidding me. No politician reads the bills. That isn't to say that I agree with that. But rather, if you think Cain is unique in that respect, you're the delusional one. I think he is unique. I haven't fully researched this, but I've heard repeatedly that he refuses to even *sign* long bills. It's not just that he won't read them, it's that he thinks wordy bills are inherently bad. | ||
|
Holophonist
United States297 Posts
On October 15 2011 13:35 visual77 wrote: I think he is unique. I haven't fully researched this, but I've heard repeatedly that he refuses to even *sign* long bills. It's not just that he won't read them, it's that he thinks wordy bills are inherently bad. Well that's actually a lot better than what I originally thought you meant. I'd tend to agree with him. I've never really thought it through so I'm just shooting from the hip, but wordy bills are how you hide the pork. Look at our constitution. Isn't it like 7 or 8 thousand words?? That's tiny compared to some crap that's thrown out there nowadays. | ||
|
darklight54321
United States361 Posts
I think he's actually one of the better choices for at least the republican nomination. While the pizza company thing is overplayed in relation to economy, the 9-9-9 is simply a meant as a rewrite of the tax system. ANY REWRITE IS A GOOD REWRITE. I say this because it a. Opens the door for more major tax reforms b. Is better then the current system by far. It also does what all you idiots seem to want, tax the 1%. On other issues. The whole political correctness with the muslim is not stupid or bad, neither is it illegal. It's a bit paranoid, but he doesn't actually go after muslims as a whole, if anything, he's complimenting the terrorists (or overestimating, however you want to put that). It's not correct, but it shouldn't be taken as a "deal breaker" or such. On "rejection of long bills" this is actually a misconception of what he has said. He beleives that any bill of importance or that should go through should be able to summarize, detail the major points, and give a conclusion within the first few pages. He's not going to not read a bill just because it's long, he's not going to read a long bill because it's full of shit. People have to realize that some of the bills that go through house/senate can have more then 50 pages, do you really expect him to read through ALL of this? On supporting the wars, i believe it's more a support the soldiers thing, and the idea that since we have started it, we need to finish it (at least in iraq and similar). I have not read enough of his viewson this to say more then that on an "i believe". I am also fairly ignorant of the Federal Reserve and the War on Drugs take of his. Though if his lack of focus on the war on drugs removes the shit about weed thats a + in my book, since that just mean all the weed busts will shift to the stuff that actually matters. User was warned for this post | ||
|
kingcoyote
United States546 Posts
On October 15 2011 13:44 Holophonist wrote: Well that's actually a lot better than what I originally thought you meant. I'd tend to agree with him. I've never really thought it through so I'm just shooting from the hip, but wordy bills are how you hide the pork. Look at our constitution. Isn't it like 7 or 8 thousand words?? That's tiny compared to some crap that's thrown out there nowadays. While you are right, to put in place a blanket declaration that he refuses to sign anything over a certain length is too far in the other direction. The number I've heard for that length is 3 pages. That is absurdly short for any kind of document that requires specific enough language to be the kind of law that I consider effective. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On October 15 2011 10:14 karlmengsk wrote: Seeing as how he's a complete moron who talks out of his *** he'll probably win handily. I mean, case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPiSzCDChX4 Wow, this guy is an idiot and an asshole. | ||
|
sekritzzz
1515 Posts
On October 15 2011 13:44 Holophonist wrote: Well that's actually a lot better than what I originally thought you meant. I'd tend to agree with him. I've never really thought it through so I'm just shooting from the hip, but wordy bills are how you hide the pork. Look at our constitution. Isn't it like 7 or 8 thousand words?? That's tiny compared to some crap that's thrown out there nowadays. People don't write big bills because they want to hide stuff....? wtf this isn't cartoon network with the miniature writing in the bottom left that nobody can see. The reason bills/laws tend to be long is because they have to inform you of all the do's and don't without any exploitable loopholes. Just look at insurance policy papers they're huge, but they have to do it to make it understandable/clear despite its longevity. | ||
|
Obstikal
616 Posts
On October 15 2011 13:45 darklight54321 wrote: On other issues. The whole political correctness with the muslim is not stupid or bad, neither is it illegal. It's a bit paranoid, but he doesn't actually go after muslims as a whole, if anything, he's complimenting the terrorists (or overestimating, however you want to put that). It's not correct, but it shouldn't be taken as a "deal breaker" or such. Are you serious ?? You just gave reason there as to why it should be taken as a deal breaker. 1.Paranoid? Of having a muslim in his office ? Seriously ? and him saying because some % muslims are bad. Hey, fyi some christians are bad dont put them on your administration either. 2. Complimenting terrorist ? - Lulwut? How is it a compliment to them to say that some muslims are bad people. 3. Of course its not illegal but its extremely immoral to say " I won't hire a muslim because some of them are bad " Didn't hitler himself say he was christian or promote christianity(even if it was a lie to have more followers) ? | ||
| ||
