The Cain Mutiny

[layoutshooter]

Well the people who don't care can't complain about who's in the WH, can they?

Sure they can. People are fed up. They know that there is little they can do to control the government. Those who try risk being ruined by the press, or worse. The established parties will do everything in their power, legal or other wise, to insure that the candidates that they want are elected. There is almost no chance that a quality candidate, one who is not owned by the party, will ever show up on the ballot.

I don't believe that the lack of interest in voting is voter apathy. I believe that it is voter disgust.

 

[greg334]

Sure they can. People are fed up.

So let them be fed up, most are concerned with things that have nothing to do with our government or the people in it like sports or dwts crap. If they don't vote, if they take an interest in it when someone says an outrageous thing, too bad.

They know that there is little they can do to control the government.

TO me and many who think like me - this is a lame excuse for not participating. Unless it has something to do with something one has or one gets, most people are too lazy to put any effort into changing anything. For example this industry has a few million people working in it but by comparison Gold Star Mothers has done more politically in the last four years than our entire industry has done in the past 30. We have a lot of complainers and a lot of people who make a big deal about things that are not important but where is the groups of people marching on Washington? Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Those who try risk being ruined by the press, or worse.

WoW I better check to see if I'm being ruined by the press. I already had worse happen to me so I think the press would be a change for once.

I am talking about those who are called CITIZENS, not those who take up the profession of being a politician.

The established parties will do everything in their power, legal or other wise, to insure that the candidates that they want are elected.

OF course they will, but then look at who is running to be a candidate and think about why Cain and Paul are important to the race. Anyone of any common sense can see that if say Cain gets the votes, that is a game changer in that party and the old guard has a limited time of running the show. BUT instead we have these conservatives (who can't seem to define themselves) are looking at one of those old guard people as being the savior of the country when in fact he has been part of the problem.

There is almost no chance that a quality candidate, one who is not owned by the party, will ever show up on the ballot.

Quality is a relative term, I would think that someone who is more able to stick to their convictions is a better candidate and we have had them. BUT then again the parties both need to change, they are at this point in our history the same - republican and democrat, conservative and liberal, all the same.

I don't believe that the lack of interest in voting is voter apathy. I believe that it is voter disgust.

Well then people need to take a que from those who take from us working class people, AARP and the gray movement. No other group can be a greater example of how the country is shaped by a small group who puts nothing back into the system at this point in their lives. Their incisive need to continue a socialist program is demonstrated by the fear of the politician who kisses their a** and doesn't want to change the most expensive programs we have ever have. We are in debt by these programs and puts our country at risk by adding to a debt we can't pay for - all because the politicians are afraid of this group.

So what Cain represented a chance to change things or at least get people to think. No matter how you want to cut it, he and Paul were the only two who had somewhat of a plan that may or may not have worked. The others are just rehashing Obama's talking points.

 

[layoutshooter]

Paul cannot win. His lack of speaking ability and lack of leadership qualities will sink him. Even with some of the good ideas he has he cannot sell them. He is boring, uninspiring.

Cain defends the Fed. He was not right for us either.

As to the "rest of the mess" with him, what is good enough for Clinton is good enough for Cain. As so many like to say, character does not count.

I will vote, I will have to hold my nose, again when I do. That allows me the right to complain. As always I will be voting against candidates and for no one.

 

[jimby82]

Paul cannot win. His lack of speaking ability and lack of leadership qualities will sink him. Even with some of the good ideas he has he cannot sell them. He is boring, uninspiring.

Please see George W. Bush, 2000, 2004 lol.

 

[layoutshooter]

Please see George W. Bush, 2000, 2004 lol.

Bush was a main stream liberal Republican. He did not have to have any qualities. I held my nose when I voted those years too. I voted against the "other guy", not for Bush.

 

[jimby82]

I know what you mean. I voted for him too in 2000 and 2004, and much for the same reasons.

I did vote for Ron Paul in the Ohio Primary, but again, voted for McCain (lesser of two evils) in the Presidential.

"Quality Candidate" is an Oxymoron these days.

 

[layoutshooter]

I know what you mean. I voted for him too in 2000 and 2004, and much for the same reasons.

I did vote for Ron Paul in the Ohio Primary, but again, voted for McCain (lesser of two evils) in the Presidential.

"Quality Candidate" is an Oxymoron these days.

I know the feeling. Just about everybody running these days are morons! I will be voting against Obama. So far at least I see no one worth voting for.

 

[RLENT]

Paul cannot win.

Actually, Paul can win ........ but it will take some effort, not only on his part ..... but on the part of others as well - you know those folks that greg was talking about: the CITIZENS

His lack of speaking ability and lack of leadership qualities will sink him. Even with some of the good ideas he has he cannot sell them. He is boring, uninspiring.

An address to Loyala University Economics Club, an hour and ten minutes long (Paul starts around 11:35 in), unscripted, no notes, no tele-prompter, entirety spontaneous:

Ron Paul Speech at Loyola University New Orleans

Some folks find honesty, character, adherence to principles such as following the Constitution, and the willingness to speak truth to power as admirable qualities.

Others folks however seem to want a pretty face, slick delivery (of lies and disinformation), and endless warmongering because they are terrified of others .... lives lived in perpetual fear ....

Of course, if one is an apathetic pessimist, one will not be likely to find much of anything, anywhere, to be inspired by.

 

[layoutshooter]

He won't buy me a boat.

 

[davekc]

Actually, Paul can win ........ but it will take some effort, not only on his part ..... but on the part of others as well - you know those folks that greg was talking about: the CITIZENS


An address to Loyala University Economics Club, an hour and ten minutes long (Paul starts around 11:35 in), unscripted, no notes, no tele-prompter, entirety spontaneous:

Ron Paul Speech at Loyola University New Orleans

Some folks find honesty, character, adherence to principles such as following the Constitution, and the willingness to speak truth to power as admirable qualities.

Others folks however seem to want a pretty face, slick delivery (of lies and disinformation), and endless warmongering because they are terrified of others .... lives lived in perpetual fear ....

Of course, if one is an apathetic pessimist, one will not be likely to find much of anything, anywhere, to be inspired by.

Paul has a chance to win maybe Iowa and that is about it. Nothing pessimistic about it. Just a reality. No different than saying Santorum, Bachmann or one of the others will be the nominee.
Most likely you are looking at Romney or Gingrich unless one of them screws up. Hate to burst your bubble.
Probably more so than whether people want to live in "fear" as you say, the majority of the populace don't even know who Ron Paul is other than a cranky old congressman.
I see little difference from the last time he ran and this time.
Really no different than any other past election cycle. Not sure why you think this one would suddenly be different?
If he buys Layouts boat, then it could be different.

 

[jimby82]

Some folks find honesty, character, adherence to principles such as following the Constitution, and the willingness to speak truth to power as admirable qualities.

Others folks however seem to want a pretty face, slick delivery (of lies and disinformation), and endless warmongering because they are terrified of others .... lives lived in perpetual fear ....

Every time I hear or see Ron Paul, I hear Jack Nickolson's often quoted "You can't handle the truth!!"

We as a nation seem to be unable (unwilling) to face the serious shortcomings of our current political system/climate. Paul's ideology is much closer to that of our founders than any current "mainstream candidate", yet he is dismissed out of hand as not "electable", by many who claim to only want "what's in the constitution."

We do we continue to settle for mediocrity?

Telling, isn't it?

Is Paul the ideal candidate? No.
Is he electable? Yes.
Will he get the GOP Nomination? Nope.
Are we in deep do-do as a country? Yep.
Will it get better? Probably not.

Sorry to be a pessimist, but I see no real hope for us. (See Rome about 486)

With that said, I'll be casting my vote for Paul in the Ohio Primary and write him in for the Presidential. Tired of settling.

 

[chefdennis]

jimby82 wrote:

With that said, I'll be casting my vote for Paul in the Ohio Primary

Been there, done that...but in the end, i voted against the current waste in the wh.....

 

[RLENT]

Paul has a chance to win maybe Iowa and that is about it.

ROTFLMAO .... ohhhh .... so now he actually has a chance to win Iowa does he ?

Wasn't your take just a bit ago that he wouldn't even win that ?:

"He isn't showing that bad in IA (maybe third place), but he is barely on the map anywhere else."​

BTW, the Saturday Poll from the Des Moines Register has him in 2nd place - and that is within the margin of error (4.9%) to actually be in the lead.

Wow - who knew there were so many fringe, lunatic nutjobs in Iowa ?

Additionally the "Serial Hypocrisy" video about Newt I linked in the other thread (released only a couple of days ago) - that has already been seen by 595,070 viewers on YouTube ... roughly doubling the number of views in about the last 48 hours ...... and of course, that doesn't count those who may have seen it elsewhere.

Wanna bet how many total views it eventually gets ?

Nothing pessimistic about it.

Dave - Please stop it ! - you are just absolutely killin' me here .... (we need the smiley where the face is slappin' the ground with it's lil' hand)

You should really, really think very l-o-n-g and hard about what you just said above .... really ....

Just a reality.

Political realities are, at times, subject to change .... and often quite rapidly ...

Ask Herman Cain .... Rick Perry .... or Michelle Bachmann

No different than saying Santorum, Bachmann or one of the others will be the nominee.

It's entirely different ... but don't ask me to explain it to ya

Most likely you are looking at Romney or Gingrich unless one of them screws up.

Gingrich will very likely implode at some point or another .... he has a history of repeatedly doing so ....

Try selling the Mitt-ster to an evangelical crowd (among others)

Hate to burst your bubble.

LOL ... you're not bursting my bubble .... you are however, providing some excellent entertainment ..... although you may be unaware that you are even doing so ...

Probably more so than whether people want to live in "fear" as you say, the majority of the populace don't even know who Ron Paul is other than a cranky old congressman.

Ya think ?

Google Results:

Jon Huntsman - About 5,410,000 results

Rick Santorum - About 5,440,000 results

Michelle Bachmann - About 17,000,000 results

Newt Gingrich - About 17,200,000 results

Mitt Romney - About 26,000,000 results

Herman Cain - About 48,000,000 results

Ron Paul - About 407,000,000 results

I see little difference from the last time he ran and this time. Really no different than any other past election cycle.

Well, believing something is the same as something else is the lowest level of perception and computation that the human mind functions at. It is almost always inaccurate (since there are always some differences)

Above that comes the ability to see similarities.

And yet above that comes the ability to discern differences.

You may wish to carefully consider what your comments above immediately say about your own level of discernment.

BTW, have you ever personally participated in building a grassroots political movement ?

Not sure why you think this one would suddenly be different?

Dave,

If I honestly thought your question above was asked in all sincerity, in an actual attempt to understand, I might take a shot at answering it.

Of course, if it was really sincere, and you were asking in earnest, that would indicate you had some actual interest in knowing the answer - and it's very likely that you would already know the answer - because you would have already have made an effort to accurately inform yourself. Of course, to do so would require overcoming certain obvious preconceptions and fixed ideas.

No, I think you're being pretty coy in your comments in regards to Dr. Paul ..... I don't see you as ever being a fan of the man ... despite the pretense of your mind "not being made up" (I'm guessing here that while you may not have made up your mind about who you might want to support, your mind is firmly made up that it will be "anybody but Dr. Paul" )

Could be that I'm wrong (about the above) ... it wouldn't be the first time ... but I'm betting not ....

So ..... thanks for playing .... and come back real soon, hear ?

If he buys Layouts boat, then it could be different.

..... and Obama thanks you for your continued and unflagging support .... expect tickets to the inaugural ball, I'm guessin' ....

 

[layoutshooter]

Just because a person does not like Ron Paul does not mean that they support Obama. Many who do not like Paul would vote for him over Obama, you know, the lessor of the two evils.

Michigan has an "open" primary. Anyone can vote, no party needed. If Paul can win here he stands a chance, if not, he has none.

I have no idea how I will vote in our primary, I don't like any of the candidates. I will vote.

 

[greg334]

Yea we have an open primary because people here could not read and got confused.

Rlent,
I am wondering about something, in the last election Paul had a strong backing from the youth vote and especially from some tea party followers - based on the amount of Paul stickers I've seen around the 'campi' and the tea party rallies.

SO I wonder if his base is going to increase now that we have had more Washington BS out of our congress and more of the same elite bidding for the top republican spot going into this election.

 

[layoutshooter]

Michigan has a "open primary" because it does not require party registration.

Since everyone can vote in this years Republican primary the independents, the Democrats and the Republicans who are tired of politics as usual can vote for Paul. That would send a real message since it would be a much better sampling of the electorate.

I bet he does not even finish third. If he cannot win an "open primary" he cannot win a general election. I don't see him here very often. Winning a State like Michigan must not be important to him.

 

[Pilgrim]

Ron Paul has had some good moments, such as the one in 2002 when he introduced the "Free Housing Market Enhancement Act" before the House in 2002. In doing so he predicted spot on what was going to happen if policies weren't changed, especially with regards to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie), and the National Home Loan Bank Board (HLBB)."

WTF Finance*|*Tag Archive*|*Free Housing Market Enhancement Act

The Fin. Svcs. Committee Chairman at that time was Spencer Bauchus (R - AL); the ranking member was Barney Frank (D-MA), who later became chairman. Unfortunately, Paul's bill never made it out of committee for consideration by the entire House.

But for every positive like the above, there's something like this:
Ron Paul: Actually, 9-11 Was "Violence" -- Not War - Greg Hengler

Wonder if he thinks the territory of Hawaii would have responsible for dealing with the Japanese "crime" of bombing Pearl Harbor? Maybe if Iran or a terrorist group like Al Shabaab should bomb the refineries in Houston President Paul would tell Gov. Perry that's a Texas problem - send the National Guard after them. It's his naive and somewhat nutty foreign policy ideas that turn off so many people that might otherwise seriously consider him as a legitimate presidential contender. Can you imagine him answering the Red Phone at 2AM? It's no wonder he's never won a single primary.

 

[Turtle]

But for every positive like the above, there's something like this:
Ron Paul: Actually, 9-11 Was "Violence" -- Not War - Greg Hengler

Did you actually watch the video? Paul never said anything even remotely close to what is depicted in the headline. He said 9-11 was "terrorism". He also said, in response to, "So Congressman, you don't believe that there needs to be a comprehensive law at the federal level equipping law enforcement to prevent domestic terrorism in this country?",

"I don't believe we need a comprehensive law at the federal level, I believe we need state laws against violence. The one law that we do have at the federal level, that we totally ignore, and that is terrorism is a crime and not a war, yet we have drifted off to being called this is a war on terrorism and is a justification to pursuit war, not only around the world but even domestically, so I would say it's a crime."

He also states, in the same context:

"This nationalization of law enforcement - we already have 100,000 federal bureaucrats carry guns. We don't need any more federal policemen. And I think the problem isn't a lack of federal laws and federal policemen."

In response to, "What would you call [what happened on 9-11]?

"Well that's an act of violence, a criminal a..." [interrupted with, "Was that an act of terrorism, Congressman?" to which he replied, "Yeah, it's a terrorist attack, and....we do have a responsibility [in] protecting our borders and all, but it's an act of terrorism, and we have a responsibility, we should be checking our borders and finding out who's coming in, but we ought to understand that whole problem, rather than just saying that 'what we need is more federal policemen and that it's a lack of federal police activity and federal guns that will make us safer' ".

"But if you don't understand [the] motivation and all the problems of why we're facing this crisis and why people want to come here and kill us, just more laws won't do it. I mean, this whole thing is all messed up because, what we have been told for 10 years is that people want to come here and commit acts of terrorism against us because we're free and prosperous. As long a people believe that, believe me you're not gonna solve the problem, and you're not gonna make the people any safer."

 

[greg334]

But for every positive like the above, there's something like this:
Ron Paul: Actually, 9-11 Was "Violence" -- Not War - Greg Hengler

Hate to break the news to you but it is violence and not war.

If you actually listened to his explanation of his position, he makes more sense than those who ran around here claiming that we are fighting a war on terror.

One of his points is that we have too much of a federal presence in law enforcement and it has been ineffective in preventing violence from happening, a good example is crime is on the upswing in the southwest.

Another of his points is treating terrorism as a crime and not as a factor of war, the individual is responsible, not the religion or the culture or what ever. We get caught up in this idea we have to seek out revenge and this seems to be where people's emotion blocks their common sense.

The problem is, and it seems to be a little bit clear as a bright sunny day, the writer of the piece is another idiot who provides nothing more than a jumping off point for those who want to remain ignorant.

Wonder if he thinks the territory of Hawaii would have responsible for dealing with the Japanese "crime" of bombing Pearl Harbor?

Really?

Let's see... we did deal with the Japanese after the war for their crimes, we decimated their country and stopped them from continuing a war they started in some parts of the world. We took action against those in their government and punished the people who either way we felt were part of the problem.

BUT that said -

Japan ---> a government who declared war on us.

Terrorism ---> an method of making a political or a religious statement

A bit of a difference there.

Maybe if Iran or a terrorist group like Al Shabaab should bomb the refineries in Houston President Paul would tell Gov. Perry that's a Texas problem - send the National Guard after them.

If it was Iran, it is an act of war which is what Paul is not talking about.

BUT if it is say the RIRA, it is then violence and needs to be dealt with as a violent act against the people.

See the difference?

It's his naive and somewhat nutty foreign policy ideas that turn off so many people that might otherwise seriously consider him as a legitimate presidential contender.

So let me get this straight;

His position that we don't need to be meddling in other people's messes is nutty?

OK I can see where some would think that but isn't it time we consider what is more important as a national security issue - say... the difference between defending South Korea against North Korea and the US/Mexican border.

At this point in time we spend more money in Korea than we do with our southern border.

Go look up the budget info.

The question is raised what is better for our national interest at this point, protecting a country that is not our own but has the protection of the UN or our own country against an invasion?

The same goes for Iran, we are not there to stabilize the region for Israel, we are there to stabilize it for Saudi Arabia. Israel has fought a few wars without our help so when you look past the rhetoric of the Iranian president, their real enemy is the Sauds.

I think if anyone is taking a naive approach to the issue, it is those who stand up and say we are fighting a war on terror. It is also those who continue to see us as the world's only super power and we can solve the problems of the world by our presence in these places.

People like Gingrich, Bachmann and others have less of a clue of why we have these issues than Paul and others who see what is wrong with us.

Can you imagine him answering the Red Phone at 2AM? It's no wonder he's never won a single primary.

It doesn't matter what the scenario seems to be, the fact that the the conservatives are just like the liberals, but in one regard are worse, they like to keep things the same.

 

[Pilgrim]

"I don't believe we need a comprehensive law at the federal level, I believe we need state laws against violence. The one law that we do have at the federal level, that we totally ignore, and that is terrorism is a crime and not a war, yet we have drifted off to being called this is a war on terrorism and is a justification to pursuit war, not only around the world but even domestically, so I would say it's a crime."

My point exactly - he believes the 911 attacks and those like them are CRIMES, and should be treated that way. He probably believes the attack against the Cole was a crime and the same for the attack against the barracks in Beruit. Our weak responses to those incidents offered great encouragement to Bin Laden and Al Queada to go forward with their 911 plan.

"This nationalization of law enforcement - we already have 100,000 federal bureaucrats carry guns. We don't need any more federal policemen. And I think the problem isn't a lack of federal laws and federal policemen."

In response to, "What would you call [what happened on 9-11]?

"Well that's an act of violence, a criminal a..." [interrupted with, "Was that an act of terrorism, Congressman?" to which he replied, "Yeah, it's a terrorist attack, and....we do have a responsibility [in] protecting our borders and all, but it's an act of terrorism, and we have a responsibility, we should be checking our borders and finding out who's coming in, but we ought to understand that whole problem, rather than just saying that 'what we need is more federal policemen and that it's a lack of federal police activity and federal guns that will make us safer' ".

"But if you don't understand [the] motivation and all the problems of why we're facing this crisis and why people want to come here and kill us, just more laws won't do it. I mean, this whole thing is all messed up because, what we have been told for 10 years is that people want to come here and commit acts of terrorism against us because we're free and prosperous. As long a people believe that, believe me you're not gonna solve the problem, and you're not gonna make the people any safer."

The fact that he thinks these terrorists attacks are just criminal acts of violence shows his lack of understanding the problem. These are acts of war and should continue to be treated as such.