PDA

View Full Version : Cain train



DixieJeeper
12-02-2011, 10:52 PM
I like alot of Cain's ideas- flate tax- well sorta, security through strength, the idea of strengthing the north american neighborhood. etc etc.

I do admit to his short comings no political exeperence (which I don't necessarily think is inheirent weakness), certanly there allegations are rampid but he denies even knowing all but one of the women- which is a pretty ballsy move if he did play hid the pizza slice with them.

Thoughts on the cain train?

OverkillZJ
12-03-2011, 12:59 AM
I like him. He is not a poliotician.

Super Scout
12-03-2011, 01:01 AM
I like the fact that he is not a politician, thats about it. His 9,9,9 plan worries me abit.

abrzrkr
12-03-2011, 01:11 AM
Lie and deny

DixieJeeper
12-03-2011, 01:22 AM
I was pretty gear up for him.. I can see the first set of accussers- one that had no real details- and another that was settle out court with a non-discousure with the retail association and had a bad rep for falsley accusing before with other companies. Ok I get it-- you get a target on you when you are running. None of thos two women had any real meat to their stories and that lacked any details. So much so he denied even knowing them- which was balsy brillant or the truth.

This one worries me a bit as he admits to knowing her and helping her out financial and as he says he has done the same for men too- when he hear their stories he gave the finanical aide. But her story is wildly different than his- if its untrue I hope he pulls a Patriot Games move tomorrow and puts all the cards on the table and comes out swinging.

If it is just step down and give more spot light to Bachman and Paul.

DixieJeeper
12-03-2011, 10:30 PM
C-ya Cain- where is Ross Perot when you need him? Who does everyone else think will be the nominee for the GOP?

Super Scout
12-03-2011, 11:22 PM
The one thing that worries me is we will have another ross perot, and Obama will win again because votes where split. I love the idea of a third party but it is pointless. I personally think we need to eliminate parties. Than people will have no choice but to listen to each candidate. Me I have been on a huge Ron Paul kick.

DixieJeeper
12-04-2011, 12:00 AM
I like Paul's quasi isolationism approach to foriegn affairs. I agree as much talk about third parties in the last few elections- all they do is basically help in incumbient by splitting opposition votes. George Washington warned about political parties in his farewell address for a good reason.

I think the tea party is a good idea/movement as it hasn't tried to be a third party per se- but influence conservative allies on both aisles. Certainly they have more republican support but I believe somone that reflects more tea party ideals will be the best ideal canidate for me. Although I agree with Ron's ideas would work if he could get them into effect. The lowering of the coprorate tax rate and incentives to bring coprporations and manufactuering back.

Elimination of the HUD and Federal Education cabients are great- the fed isn't responsible for education- I am not sure I am about the elimination of the TSA though.

The_War_Wagon
12-04-2011, 08:14 PM
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/to-kill.jpg


I'd of voted for him. :sad:

DixieJeeper
12-04-2011, 10:04 PM
Wow nice recall TKAMB was a great flick- it used to be required civics class viewing along with 12 Angry men- both great old flicks with important lessons- I am sure they don't show them in school anymore for racial insensitivity or PC reasons or some other made up bravo sierra- let alone even teach civics/social studies. All of that has been replaced by socialist studies.

The_War_Wagon
12-04-2011, 10:43 PM
All of that has been replaced by socialist studies.

Quite so... http://cdn.calguns.net/calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/ack2.gif

DixieJeeper
12-04-2011, 11:07 PM
By late high school- even early high school our schools should be teaching various points of views- point and counter point type teaching. So much nowadays is just teaching the popular view or even more so the teacher's own personal agenda.

There is a point that even material that was once common place that now might seem offensive needs to be shown/read/taught if not for just the understanding of what the common held beliefs were at the time of it the work's inception. Many schools have stopped showing 12 angry men -as it portrays latinos as criminals and sterotypes within the jury room, TKABM isn't shown as it sterotypes the poor south and blacks, Mark twain isn't read in some schools now for it's racist. Certainly there are elements to all these and other works of film, written word, and political thought that do not coicide with today's culture- but you have to understand where you were- or you will be there again.

Sycotik Skier
12-04-2011, 11:50 PM
I graduated high school in 04. I was honestly disappointed that a lot of the "classic English class books" were not in the curriculum due to controversial content. I did read To Kill a Mockingbird but almost none of the other typical high school books.

2002wranglerX
12-05-2011, 11:00 AM
hate to see him go. It's too bad he didn't fit the narrative. No way was the democrat party going to let us have a black presidential candidate. That was their claim to fame. And no way were the rino's going to let him come in here and clean house. I love how this matters with a republican candidate but nobody cared when clinton was out harassing women.

I bet we get stuck with that romney a$$hole. Newt's kinda ok, but he's your typical career politician. At least he'd rape obama in a debate. other than that i'm not a big fan.

Muzikman
12-05-2011, 12:48 PM
Honestly, the more I hear most of them talk, the less I like them.

Cain: even if he is not a cheating womanizer, he did a VERY poor job of talking his way out of it. This makes me think it's all true and if it wasn't he can't think straight under pressure which is something the President needs to be able to do.

Romney: He just scares the hell out of me. I am not convinced he's any better than Obama. He's a liberal in conservative clothing.

Perry: This guy is just plain crazy. Some folks compare him to G.W., but I wouldn't insult Bush that much.

Bachmann: She doesn't stand a chance and I am not sure she has any of her own ideas. She seems to just take the popular Tea party position and run with it.

Newt: I am not sure I could vote for a guy who cheated on his first two wives (not sure how #3 thinks things will be different) and to top it off, he divorced his first wife because she had cancer. To a point I agree that the presidents personal life should not matter as much as his actions, however, ones personal life is a good indicator and in this case, lying is easy for him. Which is not something I think makes a good president.

Santorum: I am not sure why he's running for president or how he's stayed in it this long.

Huntsman: You know, the more I listen to this guy, the more I like some of his ideas. He just doesn't have a chance in hell.

Paul: Although I don't agree with everything he says, I find that he's atleast for ideas, he's been consistent on his message and he seems to have this countries best interest in mind. Yes, he's crazy, yes, he's wacko, but maybe that's what we need right now.

OverkillZJ
12-05-2011, 01:10 PM
The one thing that worries me is we will have another ross perot, and Obama will win again because votes where split. I love the idea of a third party but it is pointless. I personally think we need to eliminate parties. Than people will have no choice but to listen to each candidate. Me I have been on a huge Ron Paul kick.

How do you propose to eliminate parties? It's no different from groups of friends - they are boundless to form. I dislike that we ended up with two very powerful ones - but if you blow these two up - given time the same exact thing will happen again. Polarization is just a fact in politics and life.

OverkillZJ
12-05-2011, 01:12 PM
Honestly, the more I hear most of them talk, the less I like them.

Cain: even if he is not a cheating womanizer, he did a VERY poor job of talking his way out of it. This makes me think it's all true and if it wasn't he can't think straight under pressure which is something the President needs to be able to do.

Romney: He just scares the hell out of me. I am not convinced he's any better than Obama. He's a liberal in conservative clothing.

Perry: This guy is just plain crazy. Some folks compare him to G.W., but I wouldn't insult Bush that much.

Bachmann: She doesn't stand a chance and I am not sure she has any of her own ideas. She seems to just take the popular Tea party position and run with it.

Newt: I am not sure I could vote for a guy who cheated on his first two wives (not sure how #3 thinks things will be different) and to top it off, he divorced his first wife because she had cancer. To a point I agree that the presidents personal life should not matter as much as his actions, however, ones personal life is a good indicator and in this case, lying is easy for him. Which is not something I think makes a good president.

Santorum: I am not sure why he's running for president or how he's stayed in it this long.

Huntsman: You know, the more I listen to this guy, the more I like some of his ideas. He just doesn't have a chance in hell.

Paul: Although I don't agree with everything he says, I find that he's atleast for ideas, he's been consistent on his message and he seems to have this countries best interest in mind. Yes, he's crazy, yes, he's wacko, but maybe that's what we need right now.

That is a great way of putting it. I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything either - but he is CONSISTENT and hasn't flip-flopped, lied, or cheated his way out of anything (yet.) So far with him what you see is what you get - and I respect that very much. It is sad the candidates we end up with though: no one actually wants the job.

SirFuego
12-05-2011, 02:00 PM
How do you propose to eliminate parties? It's no different from groups of friends - they are boundless to form. I dislike that we ended up with two very powerful ones - but if you blow these two up - given time the same exact thing will happen again. Polarization is just a fact in politics and life.
While I would love for a legit third party to pop up, the "average" voter still tends to think of things as "left or right", "conservative or liberal", "republican or democrat". As such, any third party is going to be generically labeled as "leaning left" or "leaning right" depending on the hot topics of the election -- creating the aforementioned vote division between the candidates. Given the "average" person's reliance on the media for their information -- those "black and white" distinctions aren't going away anytime soon.

This is even moreso complicated by the fact that most elections are driven by one or two major topics -- each of which has conflicting "extreme" solutions by both candidates. Without a doubt the economy/debt is going to be THE topic in this upcoming election (which again is boiled down to the "average" person as "cuts vs. taxes but heaven forbid you touch any of the social programs"). The only way a 3rd party would differentiate him/herself is if s/he has the balls to cut into social programs, which probably won't go over well.

At the same time, there is also the "comfort" and "my vote won't really count" concern many folks have about a 3rd party. The "average" voter is going to be more comfortable voting for a "proven" party because (a) they expect one of them to win, so voting for a 3rd party is just "wasting" their vote, (b) they don't "trust" the 3rd party because their platform isn't established, (c) the media probably will not give much (positive) press to a 3rd party candidate, so just by that alone, they aren't going to be portrayed as a legit candidate. Even if you do not feel those are "legitimate" reasons, you still have to accept the fact that people WILL vote with that logic whether you like it or not.

Oh and when I say "you", it is in reference to the reader of the post. Not Matt specificially.,

SirFuego
12-05-2011, 02:15 PM
but he is CONSISTENT and hasn't flip-flopped
While it can be frustrating as a voter when a candidate flip flopping, I don't know that it's as bad of thing as everyone thinks. A flip flopping candidate (in theory) is willing to adjust his view as more information is presented to him. IMO, that's more of an important feature in a leader than "sticking to your guns regardless". A good leader makes decisions based on the best information possible. If that information changes, so can/should his view.

It's one thing if the flip flop is for no reason, but it's another if new information (or a new line of thinking) was presented to the candidate that alters his view. The former (flip flopping for no reason) is often how it's portrayed by the media, whether that's the case or not.

Super Scout
12-05-2011, 02:54 PM
I use to help run the elections at my voteing location. It amazed me how many people voted strictly democrat or republican. I say we eliminate it. Hi my name is Ron Paul I am running for president based on this and this. Hi my Name is Obama this is what I believe. Simple as that, people need to understand who or what they are voting for. I have had far too many discussion with people who voted for Obama that had absolutely no idea what he stood for.

OverkillZJ
12-05-2011, 03:12 PM
While it can be frustrating as a voter when a candidate flip flopping, I don't know that it's as bad of thing as everyone thinks. A flip flopping candidate (in theory) is willing to adjust his view as more information is presented to him. IMO, that's more of an important feature in a leader than "sticking to your guns regardless". A good leader makes decisions based on the best information possible. If that information changes, so can/should his view.

It's one thing if the flip flop is for no reason, but it's another if new information (or a new line of thinking) was presented to the candidate that alters his view. The former (flip flopping for no reason) is often how it's portrayed by the media, whether that's the case or not.

I see your point - but most of the flip flopping I've seen has been to win votes - not do the right thing (or what they seem to believe is the right thing). I understand why 100% - they are essentially marketing for votes and that is part of the game - but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

And I agree on your assessment of the political parties.

Essentially I HATE career politicians. "For the people by the people" no longer exists.

DixieJeeper
12-05-2011, 03:30 PM
There are two schools of thought when it comes to elected officials:

Representative government-
in which the masses elected an official as a representative to reelect their beliefs and concerns voiced in the elected arena. The reprsentative votes or should vote to mirror the values and positions of the constituents that elected them.

Public choice/social choice theory-
states that the public elects officials in which they believe will make choices that they will be happy with- but may not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the constituents.

If you adopt social choice theory a flip flopper is no good as you have no real means to identify where the candidate stands. If you believe in a representative theory- its is a sign of a good candidate as Fuego said. It shows the candidate is open to trying to make the "best right decision"

Although both theories are flawed I tend to believe more in the representative theory. The officials rely on getting reelected so they must appease the masses to rescuer their job. A social choice prospective- the candidate takes on more of a dictator position- he/she makes decisions regardless of input or conference/consortium.

Reality is most flip flop to win votes and serve lip service to save their ass. I still believe in the system and that there are good people that want to work hard at improvment. Eric Cantor is one- he was my representative in VA and I actually worked on his cars so I knew him before he was "famous" He is the real deal... we just have to make sure we elect the best possible choice.

However, there have been a number of successful social choice elected officials- Lincoln might be argued to be one- with not following advisors and well the consitituion with his suspension of habeas corpus which played a role in preservation of the union-but that’s a debate for another time.

SirFuego
12-05-2011, 03:34 PM
but most of the flip flopping I've seen has been to win votes.

Agreed. The main problem is that no one will vote for a guy that says "If I get the job, I will be willing to support option A or option B if the information available suggests that one will be more effective than the other, however, I will choose A if it's found that the options are of equal weight based on my assessment". So the entire focus is to get elected and not present your "true" leadership skills.

IMO, that's why military (such as pulling troops out of location X) should never even be a topic of an election. There is soooooo much information that each candidate is lacking to truly make an educated decision on whether their platform suggests the "best" plan for military decisions. Take a look at Obama -- how many troops has he pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq compared to what he promised? I know you dislike Obama, and no, he hasn't done everything he campaigned for. But if you take a look at the "major" topics, he's been pretty consistent with what was within his power and has been very vocal about them -- except the military views he expressed during the campaign.

But yes, everyone has their own views of how "politics" should operate. It's just that MO of politics has changed so slowly over the years, that any single "change" was not really a big deal -- but the net effect of all of the changes has been huge. It's setup now that anything but career politicians being successful at a federal level (or even a state level) is becoming less and less likely.

OverkillZJ
12-05-2011, 03:49 PM
^Truth

DixieJeeper
12-05-2011, 10:01 PM
SirFuego= Win

Where is my "SirFuego 2012" Campaign bumper sticker

Perhaps we could come up with a nice logo like an "S" and "F" in patriotic script with a catchy background image- I am down as long as I get one of those ridiculous paper flat bill hats that they wear at party conventions.

Seeing as it is MAtt's birthday I would recommend nominating him for your running mate.

SirFuego
12-06-2011, 12:21 AM
I won't be able to run for president until the 2020 election. I'm pretty sure I miss the age cutoff by a couple weeks for the 2016 election...

The_War_Wagon
12-06-2011, 01:00 AM
I voted for CHUCK BALDWIN - CONSTITUTION PARTY last election, because I couldn't swallow the bitter RINO aftertaste of MCCAN'T. I learned my lesson after Bob Dull in '96 (and I voted for Pat Buchanan in THAT primary!!!). If you're too young to remember Dull, just watch him here. :roll:


http://videosift.com/video/Citizen-Kang

I vote for the Best MAN - NOT, the "most viable candidate," whatever the hell THAT means. If I wanna play the odds, I'll go to The Meadows and bet the ponies. And if the Republicans throw up some Romney/Huntsman/MCCAN'T wannabee, I'll vote CONSTITUTION PARTY again. :093:

JeepSteeler
12-06-2011, 09:25 AM
Dammit I just want someone intelligent and honest to vote for....don't care which party or any party. Give me somebody who is way smarter than most of us, cares about people, won't bend to the will of lobbyists, and just will do the right effing thing when they should. I don't care if the guy/gal bangs strippers all night long and does blow like John Belushi, as long as they meet the criteria above.

Still waiting for this candidate to show up....probably gonna be a long wait.

SirFuego
12-06-2011, 11:34 AM
So I have this idea. There are A LOT of practicalities that need to be addressed, here is my vision...

Create a forum would be that it would welcome both right, left, and moderate views -- which is nothing new. There would be some sort of citizenship and age verification to ensure that all members are US citizens (easier said than done). The discussion is expected to be educated and civil, so there would be heavy moderation ONLY to keep discussions civil and to remove unhelpful posts (again, easier said than done).

In addition to the "normal" forum, there would be "action" items for discussion. The goal of each action item is to come up with 2 or 3 solutions to the problem. Each action item would then be turned into a "voting item". I have some ideas on how to make it practical, but they rely a bit too much on trusting moderators, so there would need to be some sort of checks and balances in place to ensure there isn't an abuse of power.

A voting item is triggered in two ways:
1) A completed action item.
2) An actual vote in Congress.
ALL members can vote or abstain if they wish (or perhaps require a minimum post count or "test" about the topic in question to make sure they are "qualified" to make an educated vote on the topic).


Here is where it gets interesting:


The INTENT of the forum is for it to ultimately form a political party (the Compromise party?) whose platform is dictated based on the action/voting items voted on by the member base. The idea is that anyone holding office as a representative to this party has the "high level" platform is dictated to him by the party. If a voting item garners at least 60% support, that party candidate MUST vote with the party or argue in support of the party's views. However, if a voting item does not get that much support, the candidate is free to vote in anyway they see fit.

The caveat is that I know there is a lot of stuff that happens (especially with a President) that never gets reported the public, so they would of course still perform those duties as needed. I really, really want to disallow any military decisions being made by this party as well, so the onus would be on the representative to make those decisions for the office he holds. The representative would also be responsible for reading/understanding the EXACT legislation being proposed and "dumb it down" for the people so they don't need to spend all day reading it. So in essence, the members are responsible for the "big picture" and the representative is responsible for the details.

If one or two members could get elected, "swing" votes would likely be decided by this party -- which in theory means that "the people" will have the final say in the swing votes. Sure you will have republicans and democrats participating in this forum to help swing the votes, but ultimately the voice of the people should prevail.

In theory all of this sounds good, but there are a number of logistical issues and it's debatable whether the idea is sustainable. However, if the logistics could be worked out, this would really shift the power of Congress to "the people" and people can choose to be as active as they want int whatever topics they want whenever they want.

The big problem I see, though, is information overload for the average user. I think there may need to be summary articles available on the front page to sum up the viewpoints expressed by all sides. The geographical issue is a huge one. I don't really know how I feel about members from other states having the power to swing a senators or representative's vote.

I also think this idea is only practical at a Congressional level. I do not think that this idea is good at the presidential level except perhaps to nominate a moderate candidate who isn't bound to the 60% rule.

I've seen www.americanselect.com (http://www.americanselect.com), but it doesn't do exactly what I'm looking for. At a Presidential level, I think it's a good step forward (and arguably better than my idea), but I don't think it really helps much from the Congressional level. So perhaps a hybrid approach is what we really need.

DixieJeeper
12-06-2011, 03:19 PM
I am revising my request to show that I want a ridiculous flat bill paper party hat, a fuego bumper sticker.. and an appointment to some cushy govt' job for giving you the nod to go forth with your party and campgain.

ridgerunner97
12-06-2011, 06:46 PM
A thread like this always makes me impressed at the overall caliber of individuals that congregate on the board. Jared I absolutely love reading your posts on political and economic theory.

DixieJeeper
12-06-2011, 10:40 PM
plain and simple no BS aside- it is nice to see we have alot of members with intellect and intellegence that reaches past thier offroad prowless.

Bottom line I would like to see people who put the country and community first- reject party lines and stances when go against the good of the people. Somone who is an outside but persuesive, knowledgable yet humble, determined but still flexibile, humble yet strong- yes I know those are contradictory terms but what I want is somone willing to be a decent person and fight the good fight. A "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" or "Dave" type president- hell even represenatives. Like I said- Eric Cantor is one of those guys having lived near him and had a working relationship with him- I am just not sure how many of "him" there are.

JeepSteeler
12-07-2011, 08:47 AM
Turbo I'd prefer to have "prowess" rather than "prowless" if that is OK with you. :)

Other than that, Bravo sir, Bravo I say.....

DixieJeeper
12-07-2011, 11:05 PM
"Dam otto cord ect"