Republican Debate SC

  • News
  • Thread starter drankin
  • Start date
  • #1
drankin
I like Cain but Ron Paul owned that debate IMO.

Who did you like? (None of them is not an answer).
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Al68
I like Cain but Ron Paul owned that debate IMO.

Who did you like? (None of them is not an answer).
None of them. :smile:

Seriously, I didn't see the debate, but anyone who sees Ron Paul in action realizes one thing immediately: He is not the same person most of the media make him out to be. He's a good, decent person, and the greatest friend of economic liberty and the constitution in DC since Goldwater.
 
  • #3
180
0
Herman Cain presented well. Santorum looked like a strong VP candidate - someone who can wrestle votes on the Hill.
 
  • #4
skippy1729
It is easy to forget that we are selecting a chief EXECUTIVE, not a lawmaker or a policy wonk; send them to Congress. That being said I think Herman Cain the best choice. I am not about to discount his prospects. At this stage in the last cycle I don't think anyone gave Obama much of a chance.

Mr. Cain presents himself as confident but not an elitist, a strong leader without being dictatorial, opinionated but not an ideologue. Although this is superficial, he has a physical presence that many of the others lack.

Skippy
 
  • #5
Al68
They all have advantages and disadvantages, but the hard part is that Republicans must choose between someone who is relatively unknown (like Cain) or has been thoroughly demonized by the left (like Paul). There are no, and never will be, any reasonably worthy candidates that are neither.
 
  • #6
306
1
Santorum

I still giggle every time I hear/read that name...
 
  • #7
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,208
14
They all have advantages and disadvantages, but the hard part is that Republicans must choose between someone who is relatively unknown (like Cain) or has been thoroughly demonized by the left (like Paul). There are no, and never will be, any reasonably worthy candidates that are neither.

Isn't that also true in the opposite direction? Democrats must choose between someone who is relatively unknown (no examples) or has been thoroughly demonized by the right (like Obama).

Demonization goes both ways.
 
  • #8
OmCheeto
Gold Member
2,191
2,644
I still giggle every time I hear/read that name...

Oh. My. God.

Do not google that name.

:redface:
 
  • #9
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,955
617
  • #10
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,955
617
Note to self: when Om says don't google something, don't google it.
 
  • #11
drankin
We learn something new each day. *shudder*
 
  • #12
Al68
Isn't that also true in the opposite direction? Democrats must choose between someone who is relatively unknown (no examples) or has been thoroughly demonized by the right (like Obama).

Demonization goes both ways.
Yes, but to a far lesser extent. Mainstream Republicans don't stoop so low on a daily basis as to spew hatred such as accuse Dems of trying to take food out of the mouths of children, put old people out on the streets, etc.

The lowest level of incivility seen on the right, by a small minority, pales in comparison to the incivility and putridness spewed by virtually all Democrats on a daily basis. The fact that Democrats seem to be oblivious to their own incivility, despite its blatant obviousness and incessant repetition, only makes it worse.

The fact that a Democrat can claim that Republicans want to help rich people at the expense of hurting old people, and starving little children, then refer to someone as uncivil because they used to word "socialist" to refer to Obama and his agenda is just mind numbing.

There is no comparison. You can't just say "they all do it" to equate them. That's like saying "we all sin" to equate Bin Ladin to Mother Theresa.
 
  • #13
306
1
It's even more interesting when you realize that the definition of "santorum" was created specifically to memorialize Rick Santorum.
 
  • #14
306
1
Yes, but to a far lesser extent. Mainstream Republicans don't stoop so low on a daily basis as to spew hatred such as accuse Dems of trying to take food out of the mouths of children, put old people out on the streets, etc.

The lowest level of incivility seen on the right, by a small minority, pales in comparison to the incivility and putridness spewed by virtually all Democrats on a daily basis. The fact that Democrats seem to be oblivious to their own incivility, despite its blatant obviousness and incessant repetition, only makes it worse.

The fact that a Democrat can claim that Republicans want to help rich people at the expense of hurting old people, and starving little children, then refer to someone as uncivil because they used to word "socialist" to refer to Obama and his agenda is just mind numbing.

There is no comparison. You can't just say "they all do it" to equate them. That's like saying "we all sin" to equate Bin Ladin to Mother Theresa.

How are those "death panels" we heard so much about the democrats setting up?
 
  • #15
Al68
How are those "death panels" we heard so much about the democrats setting up?
That's a perfect example of my point. The worst example of occasional incivility on the right you can think of is comparable to, or less uncivil than, the general bread and butter message of the Democratic Party: that Republicans don't care about poor people, old people, want them to starve, eat dog food, go homeless, etc.

When you have to cite one side's worst examples to compare to the other sides daily coordinated routine, you make my point better than I can. Thanks.
 
  • #16
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,208
14
Disgusting more than interesting. But as a libertarian, I think Santorum had the first part of his comments right: nobody should be imprisoned for homosexual acts, bigamy, polygamy, incest, or adultery, assuming it's between consenting adults.

Of course he was grouping those sexual acts together for a different purpose, but they are all similar in the sense that none of them are any of the federal government's business.

For some reason I don't often agree with you, but I agree with you here.
 
  • #17
Al68
Al68 said:
Disgusting more than interesting. But as a libertarian, I think Santorum had the first part of his comments right: nobody should be imprisoned for homosexual acts, bigamy, polygamy, incest, or adultery, assuming it's between consenting adults.

Of course he was grouping those sexual acts together for a different purpose, but they are all similar in the sense that none of them are any of the federal government's business.
For some reason I don't often agree with you, but I agree with you here.
Oops, I deleted that post after thinking that it might sidetrack this thread too much, but before I saw your response.

As far as you not often agreeing with me, you could always work on that. I'm right on every issue according to me. :smile:
 
  • #18
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,208
14
Oops, I deleted that post after realizing it might sidetrack and derail this thread, but before I saw your response.

As far as you not often agreeing with me, you could always work on that. I'm right on every issue according to me. :smile:

And I'm right on every issue according to me! :biggrin:

So I guess if we agree with each other, we MUST be right.
 
  • #19
Amp1
Originally Posted by NeoDevin View Post

How are those "death panels" we heard so much about the democrats setting up?

posted by AL6

That's a perfect example of my point. The worst example of occasional incivility on the right you can think of is comparable to, or less uncivil than, the general bread and butter message of the Democratic Party: that Republicans don't care about poor people, old people, want them to starve, eat dog food, go homeless, etc.

If your uneducated and in poverty, isn't that what it means when your told to lift yourself up by your bootstraps. Examples, like Tyler Perry, Oprah, and other rags to riches {maybe not Oprah} true stories are not common place. The start of a more equitable and civil society starts with a sound well rounded education. Tyler could read and write. Many children are barely able and quite a few adults. Ron Paul's plan though I haven't read it from the criticisms I hear - isn't beneficial to senor citizens. Also, the same criticisms or critics say it doesn't do much to lower the deficit even though it would possibly enlarge the segment of the pop. that is impoverished and shelter challenged. JMO.
 
  • #20
Al68
If your uneducated and in poverty, isn't that what it means when your told to lift yourself up by your bootstraps. Examples, like Tyler Perry, Oprah, and other rags to riches {maybe not Oprah} true stories are not common place. The start of a more equitable and civil society starts with a sound well rounded education. Tyler could read and write. Many children are barely able and quite a few adults.
I'm not sure what your point is with any of that. Perry and Winfrey are obviously not typical of anything. They both have had an extraordinary combination of opportunity, talent, and hard work.
Ron Paul's plan though I haven't read it from the criticisms I hear - isn't beneficial to senor citizens.
You seem pretty sure of that after admitting complete ignorance of it, other than the "criticisms" you've heard. That's the problem with the whole country: people vote based on fraudulent propaganda by power hungry politicians instead of informing themselves of the facts.
Also, the same criticisms or critics say it doesn't do much to lower the deficit even though it would possibly enlarge the segment of the pop. that is impoverished and shelter challenged. JMO.
Sounds like something a power hungry politician would want people to believe. Hmmmm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
CAC1001
Seriously, I didn't see the debate, but anyone who sees Ron Paul in action realizes one thing immediately: He is not the same person most of the media make him out to be. He's a good, decent person, and the greatest friend of economic liberty and the constitution in DC since Goldwater.

Ron Paul likes to present himself as a plain-spoken, no-nonsense Texan who's just tired of the nonsense from both parties, but he is far more radical than that. His campaign took a contribution from Stormfront back in '08 (white power website), there is also a picture of him signing an autograph for Derek Black, the son of Don Black, who is the founder of Stormfront.

He also is one of those who believes that the Federal Reserve is an evil cabal that secretly controls the money supply to benefit a special group of elites at the expense of the American people and thinks that we should withdraw all troops from everywhere and close all military bases worldwide. He also wants to shut down virtually every government agency in existence, and he has a history of being a conspiratorial type. I remember during one of the '08 debates when they asked the candidates if they believed in the push for a North American Union, and Ron Paul stated that the Trilateral Commission exists and that the national sovereignty of the U.S. is being threatened.

He believes that the United Nations wants to take away America's guns and impose a global tax and that they want to take control of the U.S. military to police the world. He also believes the Council on Foreign Relations is another evil secret group.

And his fans are like a cult. He seems to attract all of the looney-toons of the far Right, the kind who hate the Federal Reserve, hate the Federal government, think 9/11 was an inside job, the birthers, etc...In many ways, Paul is like the right-wing version of Barack Obama IMO, just lacking the suave, debonaire manner that Obama has. I wouldn't compare them as total opposites however (Obama is not a conspiracy theorist). Obama during '07 and '08, he attracted a lot of people and his hardcore fans (nicknamed Obots by the Hillary supporters) were near cult-like. He also attracted all of the loony toons of the far-Left. And of course he had the benefit of a completely compliant media. But then if you really began to look into his background, you began to see some serious red flags, raising questions of just, "Who the hell is this guy!?"

Ron Paul I see as very similar. He can seem like an honest guy (and overall I think he is), but he is waaay out there on the nutty right I think and there are some major questions he'd have to answer. Perhaps he could fully explain why his campaign took a contribution from Stormfront, or why he signed an autograph for Derek Black (perhaps he didn't know who the guy was), or why he holds the conspiratorial beliefs he does, we would have to see.
 
  • #22
180
0
How are those "death panels" we heard so much about the democrats setting up?

Are you suggesting that healthcare benefits will not be restricted (by committee process) to save costs in the future?
 
  • #23
180
0
And his fans are like a cult. He seems to attract all of the looney-toons of the far Right, the kind who hate the Federal Reserve, hate the Federal government, think 9/11 was an inside job, the birthers, etc...In many ways, Paul is like the right-wing version of Barack Obama IMO, just lacking the suave, debonaire manner that Obama has. I wouldn't compare them as total opposites however (Obama is not a conspiracy theorist). Obama during '07 and '08, he attracted a lot of people and his hardcore fans (nicknamed Obots by the Hillary supporters) were near cult-like. He also attracted all of the loony toons of the far-Left. And of course he had the benefit of a completely compliant media. But then if you really began to look into his background, you began to see some serious red flags, raising questions of just, "Who the hell is this guy!?"

Ron Paul I see as very similar. He can seem like an honest guy (and overall I think he is), but he is waaay out there on the nutty right I think and there are some major questions he'd have to answer. Perhaps he could fully explain why his campaign took a contribution from Stormfront, or why he signed an autograph for Derek Black (perhaps he didn't know who the guy was), or why he holds the conspiratorial beliefs he does, we would have to see.

Care to make a T Chart comparison - could be fun?
 
  • #24
Al68
Ron Paul likes to present himself as a plain-spoken, no-nonsense Texan who's just tired of the nonsense from both parties, but he is far more radical than that. His campaign took a contribution from Stormfront back in '08 (white power website), there is also a picture of him signing an autograph for Derek Black, the son of Don Black, who is the founder of Stormfront.
Unless you have a point or an accusation to make, such innuendo is irrelevant.
He also is one of those who believes that the Federal Reserve is an evil cabal that secretly controls the money supply to benefit a special group of elites at the expense of the American people
Nonsense. The Federal Reserve openly controls the money supply, inflating the dollar at the expense of the American people. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's what they do openly. The fact that most Americans are ignorant of the facts doesn't make such facts a secret or a conspiracy. Either you are misrepresenting Paul on purpose, or you have been mislead, or you grossly miscomprehend his position.
and thinks that we should withdraw all troops from everywhere and close all military bases worldwide.
Which I do disagree with, but he has that in common with the far left. I don't agree with Paul on every issue.
He also wants to shut down virtually every government agency in existence, and he has a history of being a conspiratorial type.
He wants to eliminate those government agencies that are redundant, unnecessary, and/or unconstitutional. Which is most of them. And if "conspiratorial type" means pointing out what the federal reserve (and other agencies) do openly, that's just plain nonsense.
He believes that the United Nations wants to take away America's guns and impose a global tax and that they want to take control of the U.S. military to police the world. He also believes the Council on Foreign Relations is another evil secret group.
The UN is openly anti-gun, and you are putting words in his mouth for the rest. Speaking out against domething isn't the same as claiming they are an "evil secret group".
And his fans are like a cult. He seems to attract all of the looney-toons of the far Right, the kind who hate the Federal Reserve, hate the Federal government, think 9/11 was an inside job, the birthers, etc..
More complete nonsense. Being pro-constitutional limited government is not "hating" the federal government. To the contrary, advocating an outlaw government, ie one that operates outside its delegated powers of the constitution, is hatred by the left of legitimate constitutional government. And the relationship to the birther, and 9/11 inside job crowd is complete fabrication. Why make such absurd claims with no substantiation offered at all?
He can seem like an honest guy (and overall I think he is), but he is waaay out there on the nutty right I think and there are some major questions he'd have to answer.
Calling someone nutty isn't very constructive. Paul is obviously farther right economically, and more libertarian, than anyone in congress since Goldwater. That's what I said to begin with, I never said he was a moderate. Speaking of Goldwater, here's one of my favorite quotes of his: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." Point is that there is no shame in having "extreme" positions, if they are on the side of liberty. And I have no desire to go back and forth with nonsensical claims, and misrepresentations of Paul with no substantiation offered whatsoever.

If you have a beef with Paul, at least represent his position accurately and with substantiation, and explain clearly why you disagree instead of just calling him nutty or conspiratorial, or paraphrasing something he said in a way that grossly misrepresents his positions. That's just basic honest debate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
CAC1001
Unless you have a point or an accusation to make, such innuendo is irrelevant.

My point is why would his campaign take the money in the first place? If they had tried that with Obama's or Hillary's or Mitt Romney's (etc...) campaign, I am sure they'd have been told to get lost.

Nonsense. The Federal Reserve openly controls the money supply, inflating the dollar at the expense of the American people. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's what they do openly. The fact that most Americans are ignorant of the facts doesn't make such facts a secret or a conspiracy. Either you are misrepresenting Paul on purpose, or you have been mislead, or you grossly miscomprehend his position.

I'm not saying it is, I'm talking about Paul's position on it. Ron Paul is one of the most anti-Federal Reserve people in the government and has been so for many years now. He consistently is seeking to "audit" the Fed (which would really politicize it). In his book End the Fed he talks about how it is some institution that controls the money supply to the benefit of some group of wealthy elites. He also gave high praise to the very conspiratorial book about the Fed, The Creature from Jekyll Island.

Which I do disagree with, but he has that in common with the far left. I don't agree with Paul on every issue.

The thing is though is that that is a view held by the far-Right and the far-Left, the fringes on each side of the political spectrum.

He wants to eliminate those government agencies that are redundant, unnecessary, and/or unconstitutional. Which is most of them. And if "conspiratorial type" means pointing out what the federal reserve (and other agencies) do openly, that's just plain nonsense.

According to Paul, the Federal Reserve does not do those things openly, that is why he wants to "audit" them (i.e. let Congress see what they are doing with regards to monetary policy, which would politicize the Fed; the Fed is independent of Congress for precisely this reason, because you don't want the entity that controls spending to also control the money supply).

As for government agencies, I agree there are a lot we would probably be better off with if we got rid of them. But Paul wants to shrink the government to the point where no income taxes would be needed (which would only be doable if we want to go back to the 1800s level of government) I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I know that Libertarians such as Paul seem to have a view of the Constitution that suits their own views on various things (for example, they'll claim the Federal Reserve is un-Constitutional, the Patriot Act is un-Constitutional, etc...)).

The UN is openly anti-gun, and you are putting words in his mouth for the rest. Speaking out against domething isn't the same as claiming they are an "evil secret group".

The UN may be openly anti-gun, but that doesn't mean they want to "take away America's guns." I mean I am sure they would like to, but that's nothing to be concerned about. You only get concerned about that if the UN was to start controlling America somehow.

More complete nonsense. Being pro-constitutional limited government is not "hating" the federal government. To the contrary, advocating an outlaw government, ie one that operates outside its delegated powers of the constitution, is hatred by the left of legitimate constitutional government. And the relationship to the birther, and 9/11 inside job crowd is complete fabrication. Why make such absurd claims with no substantiation offered at all?

You need to go find some Ron Paul fans. Yes, he does appeal to all of the conspiracy-minded types. Here is one link: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

Calling someone nutty isn't very constructive. Paul is obviously farther right economically, and more libertarian, than anyone in congress since Goldwater. That's what I said to begin with, I never said he was a moderate.

Many of his views are out there on the nutty Right.

Speaking of Goldwater, here's one of my favorite quotes of his: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." Point is that there is no shame in having "extreme" positions, if they are on the side of liberty.

That's an easy quote to misconstrue as well IMO.

And I have no desire to go back and forth with nonsensical claims, and misrepresentations of Paul with no substantiation offered whatsoever.

If you have a beef with Paul, at least represent his position accurately and with substantiation, and explain clearly why you disagree instead of just calling him nutty or conspiratorial, or paraphrasing something he said in a way that grossly misrepresents his positions. That's just basic honest debate.

Read his book End the Fed. His campaign taking the donation from Stormfront is easy to Google. And I watched Paul in that debate in which he mentioned the Trilateral Commission in response to the question about a North American union. Nothing taken out of context there.
 

Related Threads on Republican Debate SC

  • Last Post
5
Replies
123
Views
17K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
176
Views
24K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
3K
S
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
8K
A
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
Z
Top