Forum Post: Any thoughts on the most recent republican debate?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 21, 2011, 2:42 a.m. EST by michael4ows
(224)
from Mountain View, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I think it's relevant because one of these guys will likely be the next POTUS. Obama has not lived up to the promise of being a post partisan president (sorry).
Perry takes big swings at Romney and misses badly and looks like a fool while he's at it. Perry is an idiot (gee if i act tough maybe i'll win... heck.. it worked in texas).
Amoung these guys, Ron Paul is most correct if you ask me. Not sure how effective he could be though since his views are quite outside the establishment. OWS could help him to be more effective if the powers-that-be understand just how high the appetite for change really is.
Cain's 9-9-9 got torn to shreds and for good reason, definitely too regressive. Hell, even the conservative's on the stage say so. And absent 9-9-9, what else is there to him?
Romney is still standing (despite being a mormon and all that silly bs).
The Occupy Wall St. movement should be in DC and primarily geared toward the Republican Congress, the people truly responsible for the destruction of America. Here is a history of economic disasters, intentionally and repeatedly caused by republican politicians who protect Wall St Execs and Corporate criminals.
1 - Recession of 2008 George W. Bush (R) Greatest downturn since 1929, blamed on lack of regulation of financial markets and collapse of credit markets.
2 - Recession of 2001 George W. Bush (R) Began in April of 2001, marked the beginning of greatest deficit spending in all of recorded human history.
3 - Recession of 1990-1991 George H.W. Bush (R) Deregulation of Savings and Loan industry.
4 - Recession of 1981-1982 Ronald Reagan (R) Massive deficit spending/deregulation of markets.
5 - Recession of 1973-1975 Richard M Nixon (R) OPEC's increase in oil prices and massive spending in the escalation of war in Vietnam led to stagflation, the second economic crash of Nixon's administration.
6 - Recession of 1969-1970 Richard M. Nixon (R) Credited to Nixon's escalation of and massive spending.
7 - Recession of 1960 -1961 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) Noted for high unemployment, low GDP, high inflation. JFK ended the recession by stimulating the economy 10 days after taking office.
8 - Recession of 1957-1958 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) Eisenhower achieved the dubious distinction of achieving a second economic downturn on his watch, a record later matched by Richard M. Nixon, and George W. Bush.
9 - Recession of 1953 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) Increased outlays to National defense and restrictive credit policies blamed for this downturn.
10 - The Great Depression of 1929 Herbert Hoover (R) Lasted for 10 years- Blamed on Hoover's economic policy and lack of regulation of financial markets.
OCCUPY DC......
As a businessman, I have to disagree with you on Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan. Obviously..... there is a "snowball's-chance-in-hell" that he would ever get it passed; However, I agree with Newt about it the 9-9-9 plan being bold. It is the "bold" part that (currently) attracts me to Cain. Cain has his baggage (I don't know what it is yet....but everyone has some baggage).
Herman Cain has had a hard time explaining his plan at the debates with only 60 seconds to explain it; However, as I look at it closer, it is not regressive. It is VERY difficult to explain the 9-9-9 plan to anyone that is not familiar with corporate "cost accounting". Thus....my "snowball" statement above.
If Mr. Cain can figure out a better way to communicate the 9-9-9 plan to "the people". He may become the next President.
It doesn't matter who wins. Wall Street is the real shot caller in this country.
so are you for anarchy? the beautiful thing about the us, as ugly as it is, is that it has mechanisms to renew itself.
I used to believe that who was in office mattered, it doesn't.They do what the special interests want them to do so they can keep their cushy jobs and stock pile money. I'm am not an anarchist but the American government as it as it functions is headed for collapse. When Romney wins in 2012 you will find out what I already know.
With the exception of Paul, I'm still waiting for them to break out the Constitution and highlight the part about "Provide for the common defense of foreign sovereign nations," lest we keep hemorrhaging billions to Israel's defense budget each year... and Egypt's... and Pakistan's... and... you get the idea...
the whole defense spending thing is a partisan politics rathole... like we need to spend as much on our mil as the rest of the world combined in order to secure the country... but to lessen it at all, well that weakens the country... total bs crap
is isreal really our closest ally, what about england, france, germany, canada, and japan? pakistan, very near the last place (maybe somalia is lower in the list) i'd want to visit
I think we're on the same page here. I will say though that throwing money at other countries is one of the few BI-partisan things that goes on in DC.
OWS isn't going to help Ron Paul. Its not about that.
i didn't mean to imply that OWS should support him or endorse him... just that the degree of change desired per this movement could have a positive influence on his out-of-step-with-the-status-quo campaign... no endorsement required to have that effect
well in that case, it could possibly have some effect. I dunnow if its positive though, as all of the Ron Paul spam on these boards is putting off a lot of people (me included). I'm not making a judgement on his views or character. Just saying, his supporters aren't doing a good job of winning people over.
i recognize the tension between the socialist influence and the libertarian influence (i'm more in the libertarian camp)... but haven't noticed how paul supporters are pissing people off (not saying it hasn't happened, just not in my view). i dont count myself as a paul supporter, but much of what he says resonates with me, although i don't get the "end the fed" thing, not sure what the practical implications of that might be so i'm wary.
the main thing that is pissing people off is the spam like format that they use to flood completely unrelated threads. The second thing is that a lot of them are very aggressive.
I know Perry is an arrogant jerk, I share a state with him. I wish he'd go back to what forgotten corner of hell he came from.
Cain? Patsy. 999 was written by somebody at Goldman Sachs, and reads like it too.
Romney: I call him Wafflehead. First he's blasting Occupy and saying police-state oppression shit, then he's suddenly singing a different tune. Don't trust him as far as I can throw him.
Paul. Some credibility there, BUT! Observe the company he keeps, a company of corporate puppets and assholes!
Perry is an idiot. I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell anymore. Plus, he reminds people of George Bush on steroids.
Cain was on the Kansas City Federal Reserve Board. That should be enough right there to disqualify him. But he told a blatant lie denying having insulted those who question the Fed.
Romney - corporate whore. I'm hoping the famous youtube clip where he claims corporations are people (BACKS UP CITIZEN UNITED, for God's sake) will take his lying ass back to the wall street hole he crawled out of : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A
Paul - you should be asking yourself why the establishment is falling all over itself to ignore him, obstruct him, not give him any air time.
i'll watch the vid about romney, about paul cant help but notice the 2nd class rating the media gives him compared to the so called "front-runners"
The Romney video is short, and extremely telling.
Actually Jon Stewart did an absolutely hilarious clip on the media ignoring Ron Paul. I was laughing my @ss off!
It's an island of misfit toys. Each one of them has huge, glaring weaknesses and looks crazy in his own, special way (because each of them IS crazy). Romney is the least scary-looking, so he'll probably get the nom. Paul is being blacked out by his own party, so his candidacy is unlikely. Cain and Perry make W look smart by comparison. They probably don't have a snowball's chance.
i wonder if paul will go for a third party bid this year?
I honestly think that Ron Paul could do a lot more good as a citizen advocate than as a politician. Jimmy Carter wasn't a very good president, but he's done a lot of good work as a citizen advocate. I think Ron Paul could help a lot of people by withdrawing from politics. Right now, he has to rely too heavily on party support to change the parts of his message that he even has to realize are off the mark and yet his party won't support him enough to give him a chance to do anything substantial. He's in a catch-22 - a lot like Carter was shortly after he became president.
interesting... i think he's had a positive lasting influence on the current contest no matter the outcome... i wonder if he weren't a congressman (or president) what he might do... he's not a young man (76)... for him to be in the race has got to be taxing
I think Romney will get the nod, he seems to be the most mainstream and the least "scary".
I think I'd actually vote for Paul if he got nominated but he won't.
I'm hoping he runs libertarian or independent if he doesn't get the nomination.
I'm telling you - that clip of Romney defending corporations as people needs to be put out all over the place. That guy is bad news. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A
ditto paul on both points, and i too think romney will get the nod (provided he's still standing when the time comes and i think he will be despite idiot perry's assertions that he's an employer of illegal immigrants).
All of them are more on point than the OWS protesters, who desperately need to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior.
In time, all will wash away, the small movements and the great ones. And the only thing left standing will be the Kingdom of Heaven.
ok... god bless you... or maybe god help you :)