I'm a little surprised there hasn't been a thread about this yet, so I'll go ahead and start.
I was actually pleasantly surprised by what I saw.
I can see why the general consensus is Herman Cain was the most impressive...but I really don't like the sound of his foreign policy, or lackthereof. I understand where he's coming from, but at the same time he doesn't exactly strike me as a non-interventionist. It would certainly be a nice change of pace to have someone like him in the executive seat, but I would not be surprised if he continued the Bush/Obama militarism. It's totally understandable how he won over viewers...he's certainly the most interesting and charismatic and well-spoken guy who was on that stage. And I like that he was a CEO, but even still, I don't have a hard time seeing him being swayed by politics. Although, his advocacy of the Fair Tax is a bit of a game changer (and also makes me a little surprised you'd go for him). I really liked the confidence in his response when he was pushed on that, but in the end I'm not really sure how principled he is...or how rightminded all the rest of his ideas might be.
It was also nice to see Gary Johnson up there to offer a second libertarian voice next to Paul. And despite his name recognition and all establishment attention, Pawlenty was possibly the biggest yawn up there. I find if funny how the Fox News panel decided he showed the best, while even the SC voters almost unanimously said it was Cain.
And of course I shouldn't even have to bring up that prettyboy religous nutjob whose name I can't even remember. It was almost painful to watch that asshole dance around his facist principles and hide behind euphemisms like "family values" and "keep the family at the core as the basis for our goals just like the founders intended". Family family family. What he means is that gays are going to hell and that he should be able to put a gun to their head and force them to stop acting gay.
I was actually a little disappointed that Ron didn't get better questions. But I did enjoy the way he finally just got down to it and did an impression of the drug warmongers
All in all I'm pretty optimistic about the whole thing. I liked what I saw. And I don't think I have to name which candidate raised over $1 million that day...
That Herman guy was good? I guess like he said he's not a career politician so that's nice. The only people that actually answered all questions were Paul and Johnson. The rest were dodgy (especially the guy who first spoke, don't remember his name. I don't think he answered one question.)
I was quite pleased with the debate overall (I could stand watching the whole thing!) I thought the moderators were fair, and it's great they were telling everyone not to applaud until the end but ol' Ron still got plenty applause, even a good reaction for talking about legalizing heroine. Paul handled it well as usuall.
It was pissing me off that all the questions they asked Gary Johnson were nonsense questions. They totally buried him by not giving him tough questions to rip down. I was, however, quite happy that Trump, Huckabee, Palin and Romney weren't there. It gave the lesser names a moment to shine and, boy, did it pay off.
I was favorable to Herman Cain though. He's without question, in the top 3, with Gary Johnson and Ron Paul. Whichever order you feel fit to place the 3 in works, but I don't think we can really deny that they're the top 3 contenders.
Greg:That Herman guy was good?
Did you actually watch the debate?
Ripplemagne: It was pissing me off that all the questions they asked Gary Johnson were nonsense questions. They totally buried him by not giving him tough questions to rip down.
It was pissing me off that all the questions they asked Gary Johnson were nonsense questions. They totally buried him by not giving him tough questions to rip down.
Yes I was confused why they spent so much time trying to sideline Johnson as opposed to their usual target Paul.
Herman Cain supported the Bail outs and he doesn't have a consistent track record on the fed.
He also said he won't appoint muslims to his cabinet. Just one of those 3 things is enough for me not to never vote for him let alone all 3.
I'm not arguing with you, but do you have any proof of those things? I'd like to be able to confirm that and back myself up if I tell that to others.
Cain had a great presentation and speaking presence, but most of what he said was hollow and without any real meaning. His answers to most questions were something like "We need to identify the problem, and adress it effectively!" and "we need strong leadership!". Nothing of real stubstance.
I think the reason a lot of people were drawn to him was that he seemed confident and "didn't talk like a politician". Unfortunately he basically talked like a buzzword spewing CEO, which is just as bad.
I loved that answer Paul gave to the heroin question. Totally disarmed that hack-job moderator (forget his name).
A google search should turn it up. I had just thought everyone knew that.
I guess they figure Ron Paul already has an audience,w hereas Gary Johnson is still relatively unknown.
He also said he won't appoint muslims to his cabinet.
I didn't know that. Just sold me on the man.
Here is a video of the whole debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiAkeFJXwUk
http://004eeb5.netsolhost.com/hc133.htm
"He is a former deputy chairman (1992–94) and chairman (1995–96) of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City"
Ripplemagne:I didn't know that. Just sold me on the man.
Wait, what?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Why did he said that he won't appoint muslims to his cabinet. I mean what is the reason/
John James:Did you actually watch the debate?
Yeah.
Why did he said that he won't appoint muslims to his cabinet. I mean what is the reason
Right there's the video with his explanation.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/03/28/herman-cain-no-muslims-need-apply/
I am going to guess his reasoning really stems from ideas like one of the comments on that blog->
Deep Throat
March 28th, 2011 12:15 pm
Go Herman, no Muslim’s for me, remember 9/11
George W
March 28th, 2011 12:28 pm
I don’t understand why it is so hard for the left to realize that Muslims are taught to hate America. Why should they be able to serve a country that they are taught to hate?
WOW
March 28th, 2011 12:19 pm
This is exactly why the left wing media is failing miserably. You guys don’t even know what you’re talking about. In case you haven’t noticed, Sharia Law is what owns Iran and other Moooslem nations in the Middle East. But, since you’re not concerned about it I guess you are fine with Mooslem men raping their wives, daughters etc and also stoning them to death.
True the moderators were strange toward that Johnson fellow, what was up with that reality show question? That was just silly. He seemed pretty cool though I've never heard of him before watching this debate.
I believe it was Santorum (?) that dissapointed me the most. (The guy standing next to Gary Johnson.) He managed to wriggle out of that feminism quote fairly but somehow he just came off like a bigot. His comment about us having to invade Iran long ago just left me with my jaw dropped.
I don't know what the guy in the middle stands for really, either I don't remember or he dodged every question besides the hand-raising. Him and Herman seemed awful pleased when that buzzer came up too, like they didn't have much to say.
My main beef with Herman Cain was of course his foreign policy non-answer. He just didn't seem to stand on much principle. He's pro-business though and seemed to really just want government to get out of the market and reduce taxes so that's great.
Greg:I believe it was Santorum (?) that dissapointed me the most. (The guy standing next to Gary Johnson.) He managed to wriggle out of that feminism quote fairly but somehow he just came off like a bigot.
That's because he is a bigot. Check out the OP. He was the one whose name I couldn't remember.
Santorum seems to be running on a Pro-life, anti-flag burning, anti-gay, anti-woman, pro-war with Iran platform. I don't even know why he is running, he can't win, but he has nothing of substance to say like Paul or Johnson.
John James:That's because he is a bigot. Check out the OP.
I meant that he still seemed like a bigot toward women, even though he explained away that quote. I can't help but get that feeling though obviously I can't say for sure. It would go along nicely with the rest of what I have seen of him, but I guess I shouldn't assume...
Also, yeah I know that's who you were talking about I was simply in agreement. Yeah, I watched the debate AND read your post!
Are you kidding about Herman? He had nothing to say, only empty buzzwords, I think he was very bad. The fascist guy obviously has no chance, Pawlenty is boring, talks like a sleazy politician and has no message. We are left with Ron Paul and Garry Johnson who are amazing candidates and I wish luck to both. In that crowd they have no competition.
No2statism:Herman Cain supported the Bail outs and he doesn't have a consistent track record on the fed. He also said he won't appoint muslims to his cabinet. Just one of those 3 things is enough for me not to never vote for him let alone all 3.
So I did find these.
The Truth About Herman Cain. DID YOU KNOW?
Didn't see anything abou the muslim comment, but I didn't look for it specifically. And get a load of this title. You'll get a kick out of it.
Rick Santorum is a theocon's theocon. A portrait of everything that is wrong with America. Muslims are evil, America is unfaltering, the nuclear family / Leave-it-to-Beaver lifestyle is ideal for every human on the planet, "family values". Yuck. It's saddening to hear that he actually got some traction after the debate. My opinion of my fellow Americans sunk even further.
As for Johnson, Johnson didn't get many opportunities and people should at least hear him out. He provides a balancing effect for Ron Paul. Johnson isn't going to do any damage in the primaries, so at least if he gets invited to future debates, he'll be able to make Ron Paul sound less crazy to an audience that has their thought directed by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
Didn't see anything abou the muslim comment, but I didn't look for it specifically.
Just posted about it bro, scroll up.
John James: I'm a little surprised there hasn't been a thread about this yet, so I'll go ahead and start. I was actually pleasantly surprised by what I saw. I can see why the general consensus is Herman Cain was the most impressive...but I really don't like the sound of his foreign policy, or lackthereof. I understand where he's coming from, but at the same time he doesn't exactly strike me as a non-interventionist. It would certainly be a nice change of pace to have someone like him in the executive seat, but I would not be surprised if he continued the Bush/Obama militarism. It's totally understandable how he won over viewers...he's certainly the most interesting and charismatic and well-spoken guy who was on that stage. And I like that he was a CEO, but even still, I don't have a hard time seeing him being swayed by politics. Although, his advocacy of the Fair Tax is a bit of a game changer (and also makes me a little surprised you'd go for him). I really liked the confidence in his response when he was pushed on that, but in the end I'm not really sure how principled he is...or how rightminded all the rest of his ideas might be. It was also nice to see Gary Johnson up there to offer a second libertarian voice next to Paul. And despite his name recognition and all establishment attention, Pawlenty was possibly the biggest yawn up there. I find if funny how the Fox News panel decided he showed the best, while even the SC voters almost unanimously said it was Cain. And of course I shouldn't even have to bring up that prettyboy religous nutjob whose name I can't even remember. It was almost painful to watch that asshole dance around his facist principles and hide behind euphemisms like "family values" and "keep the family at the core as the basis for our goals just like the founders intended". Family family family. What he means is that gays are going to hell and that he should be able to put a gun to their head and force them to stop acting gay. I was actually a little disappointed that Ron didn't get better questions. But I did enjoy the way he finally just got down to it and did an impression of the drug warmongers All in all I'm pretty optimistic about the whole thing. I liked what I saw. And I don't think I have to name which candidate raised over $1 million that day...
I like Herman Cain and Ron Paul the best. As long as Obummer gets out, we at least have a shot at steering things in a better direction with either of these two. However, it appears as though we may not have elections for much longer as the federal government is truly spending itself into oblivion.
Regardless, I didn't agree with Cain on some things, like his unwillingness to show the bin Laden pic and not having a plan for war, but he makes the most sense other than Paul.
I disagree with Ron Paul on waterboarding. It's very effective, yet he claimed it wasn't. I didn't understand this. However, he made a great point on Habeas Corpus and the elimination of secret prisons. How much more powerful should the state be? I still say have the terrorists undergo military tribunals as the juducial system is an absolute joke. Look at Cayce Anthony. How they haven't convicted her yet is beyond me.
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -Patrick Henry
Brutus likes Herman Cain the muslim hating bigot, and ignores Gary Johnson. Big surprise.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Libertyandlife: Brutus likes Herman Cain the muslim hating bigot, and ignores Gary Johnson. Big surprise.
Can you prove I'm a "muslim hating bigot" as you so claim? Careful, careful.....
I believe he was calling Cain the bigot.
Aristippus: I believe he was calling Cain the bigot.
I think the "Big surprise" says it all though. I still haven't heard a proof. In fact, I'm willing to be he can't prove either of his claims, the direct and indirect one. How is Herman Cain a bigot?
He's judging the capability of people working in government and their capability of upholding the constitution purely based on the fact that they are Muslim. That's called prejudice. The proof for him being a bigot:
http://youtu.be/F8jGnpbED9E
I did not say that you hate Muslims, but I did strongly imply it :P
Herman Cain may or may not be a bigot, but he most certaily is an idiot.
I believe it was Santorum (?) that dissapointed me the most. (The guy standing next to Gary Johnson.) He managed to wriggle out of that feminism quote fairly but somehow he just came off like a bigot.
Yea, I the feminism question was the only one he gave a decent answer to imo. Otherwise he comes accross as another pro-war social conservitive, which pretty much sums up everything that is wrong with the Republican party today.
I was also dissapointed with Herman Cain, I was looking foreward to see him if only because he was a non-politician with real business credentials behind him. However he dodged most of hte questions with a 'we'll have to identify the problem and then address it effectively.' Which sounds to me like an admission that he has no idea what he's doing.
I also must say how awesome it was that Ron Paul got applause for heroin. I'd like to see anybody else try that one...
What else should we expect from a former Federal Reserve bigwig?
liberty student: Herman Cain may or may not be a bigot, but he most certaily is an idiot.
How is he an idiot? Prove it, unless it's yet another claim filled with hot air.
Libertyandlife: He's judging the capability of people working in government and their capability of upholding the constitution purely based on the fact that they are Muslim. That's called prejudice. The proof for him being a bigot: http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/03/28/herman-cain-no-muslims-need-apply/ http://youtu.be/F8jGnpbED9E I did not say that you hate Muslims, but I did strongly imply it :P
If you mean the muslims that want to destroy my country, you are indeed correct; I do hate them.
P.S. That's not proof, that's speculation. I asked for proof.
Having read the Qu'ran and acclimated to the cultures of Muslims, I do not trust active adherents to Islam. Muslims in name alone (ie: theists) are of no concern to me, but Islam, itself, proves to be a religion of which I am very wary about.
Ripplemagne:Having read the Qu'ran and acclimated to the cultures of Muslims, I do not trust active adherents to Islam. Muslims in name alone (ie: theists) are of no concern to me, but Islam, itself, proves to be a religion of which I am very wary about.
I have to wonder what exactly you mean by "active adherents to Islam". Something tells me they're not all created equal, but you seem to think otherwise. Why is that?
Regardless, my comment was in response to you saying that you were sold on Herman Cain simply because he vowed not to nominate any Muslims to his cabinet. I'm simply amazed that you would focus on that issue above all others.
Brutus: If you mean the muslims that want to destroy my country, you are indeed correct; I do hate them.
Brutus, please read my PowerPoint that I made. I held the same view once.
http://www.slideshare.net/anarcholibertarian/why-do-they-hate-us
Id est, the individuals who actually believe what the Qu'ran and the Hadith says. And not just generic Cafeteria-Catholic-esque, "Oh, I believe in God and my family is Muslim, so I guess I am too."
Anyway, that was more or less a joke. I do agree with his decision, though that's certainly not the only issue I'm concerned with. But he's looking impressive thus far.