Herman Cain wins FL straw poll

[thraashman]

It's funny to see Republicans hop on the cock of a black man and say that means they're not racists. When the black man they're slobbering on the knob of is himself a blatant bigot. This is a man who seems to believe that the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause means a local or state government can outright ban mosques and Islam! Just because you're refocusing your bigotry to muslims doesn't mean you're free from being a bigot!

 

[werepossum]

I like Cain, so this is good news. I don't care for his tax plan though, and I don't think this (or any other) straw pole means anything. Strange though, I thought Cain was having fund raising problems.

My neighbor has a big Herman Cain sign, so she's really excited.

And a black on black election would be awesome, if only to hear the libs pontificate on how this means conservatives are even more bigoted than they thought.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Christie/Perry 2012

 

[Jaskalas]

For me it is. I don't have faith in anyone who held, currently holds, or seeks that office.

Quite the untenable position to start from.

Just like in 2008, there will be too many people in 2012 who blindly embrace whomever tells them exactly what they want to hear, jumping from one bandwagon to another. It's the bandwagon-jumping that has gotten us into this mess.

I'd be on the two front runner's bandwagon if I simply followed what I like to hear. Smooth talking conservative, electable. An atypical Republican who has to get rid of our Black Communist Muslim Space Alien of a President would jump at the chance of Perry / Romney, and dismiss the others as a risk they're not willing to take.

I'm looking at Cain as someone with more purity in ideals than most men on that stage. I'm looking at how he fits into the Tea Party. Seems appealing.

Why should he be president?

Because one of those men WILL be. Maybe you prefer Paul to Cain, or have someone else in mind. That's fine, but if you've got a better idea then I'd like to hear it. We're not here to simply dismiss the entire concept of a President in the first place. We are here to choose one.

It also has to avoid being altered in the process of becoming law. Those alterations are usually what makes things suck.

9-9-9 is very appealing.

Your negative generalization would be applied to literally everything. Your argument cancels out any alternatives you might suggest, as it'll just 'be altered'. That's no argument at all, you're bringing some defeatist attitude in here and pointing it at Cain.

 

[Lemon law]

Well as the GOP Herman Cain star is rising, I got a chance to check on his political positions.

And a bigger nut case is hard to find. Although Rick Perry and Michele Backmann are worthy competition. As once again, the GOP radical right is driving the GOP agenda, while the GOP electorate are far to the left of the radical right.

That and the fact that Herman Cain has no elective political experience and has all the credibility of Rush Limbaugh. Point granted 14 million foaming at the mouth ditto heads is a political force, but just a drop in the bucket compared to all American voters.

 

[Jaskalas]

...

Hahaha...

And a black on black election would be awesome, if only to hear the libs pontificate on how this means conservatives are even more bigoted than they thought.

I'm really excited to have that opportunity. To have the Libs in here sputtering token this, bigoted that. It'll be quite vitriol, as if we had nominated Palin but worse. They'd go nuts with us ruining their race card game for the 2012 election.

The even larger issue at hand is, they think they've got the image of a successful black man all wrapped up in President Obama. I think it's imperative for us to counter that with a REAL success story from an authentic American.

Herman Cain, if successful, would erase the Obama legacy and shatter the Dem's use of racism. He could lead the Tea Party's charge at limiting government. That would mean a lot.

 

[zsdersw]

Quite the untenable position to start from.

Yes it is.. and that's part of the point, as well.

I'd be on the two front runner's bandwagon if I simply followed what I like to hear. Smooth talking conservative, electable. An atypical Republican who has to get rid of our Black Communist Muslim Space Alien of a President would jump at the chance of Perry / Romney, and dismiss the others as a risk they're not willing to take.

I'm looking at Cain as someone with more purity in ideals than most men on that stage. I'm looking at how he fits into the Tea Party. Seems appealing.

You are not one of the people I was referring to.

We're not here to simply dismiss the entire concept of a President in the first place. We are here to choose one.

That's correct.. we're not. I'm here to point out the foolishness of believing "the next guy" will actually live up to his campaign promises and rhetoric and fix things.

If anyone believes fixing our government is a matter of throwing out one party or one guy to replace it with another party and another guy, they're idiots... and haven't been paying attention.

9-9-9 is very appealing.

Your negative generalization would be applied to literally everything. Your argument cancels out any alternatives you might suggest, as it'll just 'be altered'. That's no argument at all, you're bringing some defeatist attitude in here and pointing it at Cain.

Defeatist? No more than you're being triumphalist.

 

[Jaskalas]

That and the fact that Herman Cain has no elective political experience

Obama is the poster child for inexperience. It's nice of you to suddenly care four years later.

 

[zsdersw]

Obama is the poster child for inexperience. It's nice of you to suddenly care four years later.

Do you view it as a mark against Cain?

 

[werepossum]

Do you view it as a mark against Cain?

It is in one respect. Obama had zero executive experience and by almost all accounts has been a failure. By November 2012 he'll have had almost four years of OJT, so if one views Obama's big problem as his lack of experience, why start over? I could make the argument that executive and government experience are both important in a President, and since Cain has one and Obama now has the other, it's a wash. I wouldn't necessarily buy that argument, but I could certainly make it and I don't consider it unreasonable.

Personally I think we have structural problems that are largely above any one man's ability to fix, so while the choice of a President is big, it's not likely to fix most of our problems. The results of our cumulative actions and bad decisions greatly constrains our freedom of action. We need to cut back government spending, but those cuts are likely to cause more job losses (and sooner) than any job creation. We need stimulus, but we're so upside down that increased government spending negatively affects the economy. We need more economic activity, but much if not most consumer spending goes straight to China and out of our economy. We now see that it would have been far wiser to make Social Security individual market accounts rather than communal piles of government debt vehicles, but that money has been spent and we can't make it up. There are no easy or even straightforward solutions I can see.

 

[Jaskalas]

That's correct.. we're not. I'm here to point out the foolishness of believing "the next guy" will actually live up to his campaign promises and rhetoric and fix things.

If anyone believes fixing our government is a matter of throwing out one party or one guy to replace it with another party and another guy, they're idiots... and haven't been paying attention.

Defeatist? No more than you're being triumphalist.

I expect to see your message in the threads on all the other candidates, including when the Dems trumpet Obama, instead of using Cain as the focal point of this generalized pessimism.

Is it justified? Absolutely. GWB royally screwed us over, and the men following him are smart enough to promise not to be more of the same. This is the crux of why I did not vote for McCain in 2008. He had a long history of working with Democrats to compromise conservatism.

Dems loved McCain until they had to run against him. I remembered his betrayal and used my vote against him. Should the Republicans try it again with Perry or Romney, I'm just as likely to do it again.

Triumphalist? I'm just looking for someone who can be voted for among the current field. I already know who I cannot vote for, the rest are unknowns who have to be weighed, measured and then decided upon.

Do you view it as a mark against Cain?

You want to talk about experience?

Obama was the chosen 2008 candidate when he gave his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. He was a state senator who jumped straight into the Presidency. The Democratic Party had him planned, bought, and sold before anyone knew his name.

I firmly believe governors are ideal for the Presidency. They have executive experience. Obama had absolutely none. Cain at least has been a business man. Not an ideal background, but better than nothing.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. Cain wasn't chosen for the Presidency four years ago. He wasn't bought, sold, and groomed by the GOP to do this. He hasn't been a politician, that's good for avoiding corruption and bad for being less experienced.

Still, if you compare him to his opponent he only comes out ahead. Obama is not one to argue experience.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

He won't accept 2,000 page bills. F' yeah, I'm tired of that crap too! Write that down as another positive.

A limited government does not need thousand page bills.

A limited government is an absolute requirement!

3 pages? lol

If you don't want any bills to be passed for his entire term to fix any of this mess then I guess he's the candidate for you. Or he could have been lying or just plain ignorant.

 

[feralkid]

Care to make a wager?

We The People know you'll welch.

 

[Nebor]

We The People know you'll welch.

IIRC he's made good on all his bets.

 

[quest55720]

3 pages? lol

If you don't want any bills to be passed for his entire term to fix any of this mess then I guess he's the candidate for you. Or he could have been lying or just plain ignorant.

Cain was making a point that bills have gotten so big and complex no one knows whats in them till years down the road. There is no reason to have a 2000 page bill. Any legislation that big can be broken up into seperate bills. The healthcare bill should of been a series of bills not 1 huge monstrosity that no one had a clue what was in it including those who wrote it.

I was in Cain's corner till he tried to out do the others for low taxes for the weathly and other issues. I still love his ideas on how to fix SS and immigration. To bad he went off the deep end.

I view his lack of holding public office a plus. Only a true outsider can fix what is wrong. Cain is a problem solver. Just a shame he went crazy.

 

[Lemon law]

Jackakas asserts, " Herman Cain, if successful, would erase the Obama legacy and shatter the Dem's use of racism. He could lead the Tea Party's charge at limiting government. That would mean a lot. "

Until you realize Herman Cain has all the minority appeal of Clarence Thomas and Alberto Gonzales.

 

[Karl Agathon]

Condi Rice FTW!!!

 

[OrByte]

Hahaha...



I'm really excited to have that opportunity. To have the Libs in here sputtering token this, bigoted that. It'll be quite vitriol, as if we had nominated Palin but worse. They'd go nuts with us ruining their race card game for the 2012 election.

The even larger issue at hand is, they think they've got the image of a successful black man all wrapped up in President Obama. I think it's imperative for us to counter that with a REAL success story from an authentic American.

Herman Cain, if successful, would erase the Obama legacy and shatter the Dem's use of racism. He could lead the Tea Party's charge at limiting government. That would mean a lot.

GOP would never nominate a black man.

 

[spittledip]

Jackakas asserts, " Herman Cain, if successful, would erase the Obama legacy and shatter the Dem's use of racism. He could lead the Tea Party's charge at limiting government. That would mean a lot. "

Until you realize Herman Cain has all the minority appeal of Clarence Thomas and Alberto Gonzales.

What is minority appeal? He doesn't appeal to minorities or something else?

 

[spidey07]

GOP would never nominate a black man.

I've liked Herman Cain since he went into the race. Listened to his ideas, words, arguments and felt like he was somebody I could REALLY support. Oh, then I guess after not seeing him I found out he was a black man. Did that change my support? Hell no. Seriously liberals, you need to drop the racism angle, it isn't sticking.

It was all the talk in the office today and me and my co-workers are sending money his way to the tune of thousands of dollars. Does he have a shot? I don't know, but I WILL do my part to make sure a constitutional conservative gets the nomination.

 

[Lemon law]

What is minority appeal? He doesn't appeal to minorities or something else?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets add up the numbers, the black vote is some 12%, the hispanic vote is some 20%, and when Herman Cain alienates all 32% and is a serial idiot, can you remember or spell Pete Wilson.

 

[Lemon law]

SPIDEY, AS YOU SAY, "It was all the talk in the office today and me and my co-workers are sending money his way to the tune of thousands of dollars. Does he have a shot? I don't know, but I WILL do my part to make sure a constitutional conservative gets the nomination."

You have a little problem with Constitution and Herman Cain, last time I checked the constitution, its illegal to discriminate against any religion. As our founding fathers erected a firm firewall of separation of church and State.

 

[spidey07]

SPIDEY, AS YOU SAY, "It was all the talk in the office today and me and my co-workers are sending money his way to the tune of thousands of dollars. Does he have a shot? I don't know, but I WILL do my part to make sure a constitutional conservative gets the nomination."

You have a little problem with Constitution and Herman Cain, last time I checked the constitution, its illegal to discriminate against any religion. As our founding fathers erected a firm firewall of separation of church and State.

That's all you got? It's illegal and unconstitutional to require somebody to purchase/enter into contract for health insurance.

And last time you checked the constitution you would be severely wrong because what you describe is NOT in there (religious discrimination in hiring was just fine according to Constitution). Discrimination based on religious status wasn't made illegal until the civil rights act/law. You need to attend more tegbag rallys, maybe you'd learn something about it.

But I do love how Cain is scaring the shit out of libtards. Conservative Black Man. Strongly conservative black man. Strong conservative black man that slams Obama and resonates with this countries views. It just burns you guys up. Like I said, I loved his principles and words. The message and direction is what's important. Only do liberals want to make this a race issue.

 

[zsdersw]

I expect to see your message in the threads on all the other candidates, including when the Dems trumpet Obama, instead of using Cain as the focal point of this generalized pessimism.

Of course. Trumpeting any of them is a sign of idiocy... which I will be only too happy to point out as such.

Cain isn't the "focal point" as much as he's the "starting point" of my statements about the presidential candidates and the incumbent.

Is it justified? Absolutely. GWB royally screwed us over, and the men following him are smart enough to promise not to be more of the same. This is the crux of why I did not vote for McCain in 2008. He had a long history of working with Democrats to compromise conservatism.

Dems loved McCain until they had to run against him. I remembered his betrayal and used my vote against him. Should the Republicans try it again with Perry or Romney, I'm just as likely to do it again.

Promises, promises. If only we could turn politicians' broken promises into dollars, we'd wipe out our national debt in one election cycle.

Triumphalist? I'm just looking for someone who can be voted for among the current field. I already know who I cannot vote for, the rest are unknowns who have to be weighed, measured and then decided upon.

That's great... a nuanced and reasoned opinion, which is precisely what I'm also expressing. So don't call mine "defeatest" if you don't think yours can accurately be described as "triumphalist".

You want to talk about experience?

Obama was the chosen 2008 candidate when he gave his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. He was a state senator who jumped straight into the Presidency. The Democratic Party had him planned, bought, and sold before anyone knew his name.

I firmly believe governors are ideal for the Presidency. They have executive experience. Obama had absolutely none. Cain at least has been a business man. Not an ideal background, but better than nothing.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. Cain wasn't chosen for the Presidency four years ago. He wasn't bought, sold, and groomed by the GOP to do this. He hasn't been a politician, that's good for avoiding corruption and bad for being less experienced.

Still, if you compare him to his opponent he only comes out ahead. Obama is not one to argue experience.

Actually, I don't want to talk about experience. I merely asked how you viewed the issue vis-a-vis Cain and Obama.

I don't want to talk about experience because neither having it nor lacking it seems to make any difference in terms of the president making the right choices.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...And last time you checked the constitution you would be severely wrong because what you describe is NOT in there (religious discrimination in hiring was just fine according to Constitution)...

From Article VI of the Constitution of the United States:
"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

More spidey fail.