• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Herman Cain for president?

Would you vote for Herman Cain for president?

  • Total voters
    88
Barbbtx said:
Obama showed his ignorance every time he spoke off teleprompter.
Click to expand...

Barb....you really need to turn off your right-wing radio and FauxNews....they are skewing your views of reality.
 
Gargantuan said:
Does anyone care that this guy says he refuses to appoint Muslims to his white house or to judicial roles?
Click to expand...

I think that will turn out to be a moot point if you know what I mean.
 
Redress said:
Yes, he was a commie...when he was young. He was a capitalist when he was in the WH
Click to expand...

he was a commie in.... 2004. then in 2005 he decided he was now a capitalist. then (as i recall) in 2006 he made a grand speech to his fellows about the importance of hiding who you are and "giving up the radical talk so you can walk the radical walk".

he was about as much a "capitalist" in 2009 as the people who are to the left of Nader but come in here and put "cosnervative" under their lean to mess with folks

I will admit, there are plenty of socialists in the WH, if you change the meaning of the word socialist to mean liberal. If you use the actual definition of the word socialist, then no, there is not.
Click to expand...

true, would you prefer we start using the more accurate phrase "corporatist"?
 
cpwill said:
:rofl: secular regimes like Mubaraks are falling because the people are angry at his imposition of Sharia Law, which is why they are replacing him with the Muslim Brotherhood :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
I cannot tell, but is this supposed to be a serious comment?
 
I will vote for him if he wins the Republican nomination. Anything is better than what we have in the Oval Office now.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
he was a commie in.... 2004. then in 2005 he decided he was now a capitalist. then (as i recall) in 2006 he made a grand speech to his fellows about the importance of hiding who you are and "giving up the radical talk so you can walk the radical walk".

he was about as much a "capitalist" in 2009 as the people who are to the left of Nader but come in here and put "cosnervative" under their lean to mess with folks
Click to expand...

This is true if you selectively take little bits if his words out of context. There is no credible evidence he has been a commie at all in the last 5 years.

true, would you prefer we start using the more accurate phrase "corporatist"?
Click to expand...

Can we start calling modern conservatives by the more accurate phrase "fascist"?

See what I did there?
 
cpwill said:
:lamo

you do realize that it is the islamists who are leading those movements?

:lol:


:rofl: secular regimes like Mubaraks are falling because the people are angry at his imposition of Sharia Law, which is why they are replacing him with the Muslim Brotherhood :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? These are secularized students. You are believing the crap coming from those regimes. Mubarak was able to stay around for a while because he convinced us that all that was left is the Muslim Brotherhood. These are peaceful students. The men who are running for President of Egypt at this point are two secular Muslims. The muslim brotherhood isn't even running someone for President.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
I cannot tell, but is this supposed to be a serious comment?
Click to expand...

I'm laughingly pointing out the ridiculousness of the logic presented. anyone who claims that the muslim brotherhood that overthrew Mubarak and is currently fighting Assad is trying to destroy sharia law in the middle east simply has no idea what they are talking about.
 
Redress said:
This is true if you selectively take little bits if his words out of context. There is no credible evidence he has been a commie at all in the last 5 years.
Click to expand...

:) the man told us he's a capitalist, and then told his buddies he was lying specifically in order to fool us, but we are supposed to prefer the first when the evidence points the other way? no thanks. this isn't a trial where you need overwhelming evidence, it's a judgement where you need preponderance of evidence.

Can we start calling modern conservatives by the more accurate phrase "fascist"?
Click to expand...

no because fascism does not describe modern conservatism, though there are strands that have picked up some pieces from it. but corporatism is a critique, an attack on the kind of lassiez-faire free-market economics that modern (american, let's be clear) conservatism expounds. The New Deal (and it's predecessor programs under Hoover), for example, was a classic Corporatist - themed attempt to reign in and reorder a free-market based economy.

corporatism is the economic philosophy that was on display during the second Bush Administration and thus far in Obama's first.
 
pbrauer said:
Correct, he has no political experience, he has never run for political office. Almost no one has heard of him, political investors will not donate to him. Besides, I've heard Godfathers Pizza is awful.


That's quite a load of Glenn Beck Koolaid to swallow....:lamo
Click to expand...

I used to love Godfathers pizza as they would really heap the toppings on. Sadly none around these parts anymore.
 
cpwill said:
since that's not the accurate depiction of what he said, no. what he stated was that he would have to be very satisfied that they would apply US law over shariah law - which I have no problem with. No US Judge or Governmental Appointee has the right to impose their religious preferences over US Law.
Click to expand...

the problem with that is shouldn't that be his thought process for EVERYONE, not just Muslims?
While I agree 100% with you last statement theres a poster in this very thread who as said many times his bible is more important than the constitution or the united states, and thats fine thats his right but his religion would never be question because its christian thus the issue people are having with the statement.

For example if someone asked me if I would hire a black person and I said no, then I said well only because I would have to make sure he isnt a thief or a drug dealer first would that be ok?

Or if someone said whould you hire a gay person and I said no, then I said well I would have to make sure they arent going to molest any children first.

the issue is that it seems his gut reaction was to STEREOTYPICALLY judge/assume first before rational thought.

just my two cents on the subject.
 
Curious to know how people thought Cain did on Fox News Sunday. I have such a bias, not sure I can fairly grade him, but I think he got a B-. Maybe I just know he could've done better so didn't give a better grade. or maybe because i love the man, I didn't give him a worse grade. Or maybe he earned a B-. :shock:
Here it is for anyone who missed it.
He is asked about the debt limit, the fair tax, Israel, and his Pac
 
Here's my problem with Cain. If you can explain it away, I'll give him another look.

He would not appoint a muslim to his cabinet. Why? Because he would not know "what is in their heads". There are three problems with this:

1. He's bigoted against muslims.
2. Surrounding oneself with people who's thoughts one can read is a step away from surrounding oneself with yesmen.
3. He is limiting the diversity and thus perspective of his cabinet, on purpose.

He must apologize for that statement sincerely, or provide an explanation I cannot imagine, for me to consider supporting him.
 
ecofarm said:
Here's my problem with Cain. If you can explain it away, I'll give him another look.

He would not appoint a muslim to his cabinet. Why? Because he would not know "what is in their heads". There are three problems with this:

1. He's bigoted against muslims.
2. Surrounding oneself with people who's thoughts one can read is a step away from surrounding oneself with yesmen.
3. He is limiting the diversity and thus perspective of his cabinet, on purpose.

He must apologize for that statement sincerely, or provide an explanation I cannot imagine, for me to consider supporting him.
Click to expand...

That will no doubt be a problem for him. However, you have to give him credit for being honest, knowing that it could harm him.
Here he is on the Laura Ingraham show, probably digging himself in deeper with his honesty. He's not going to apologize, and if he does I would call that a flip-flop, making him no better than anyone else running.




On The Laura Ingraham Show, Conservative candidate for President, Herman Cain, went even further than he did in his previous comments regarding Muslims.
“I want people in my administration that are committed to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. I don’t want any inkling of anybody in my administration who would put Sharia law over American law.” ”I have not found a Muslim that has said that they will denounce Sharia law, you know, in order to support the Constitution of the United States'
Click to expand...
He talks more on the video with Laura.
Click to expand...
 
pbrauer said:
Correct, he has no political experience, he has never run for political office. Almost no one has heard of him, political investors will not donate to him. Besides, I've heard Godfathers Pizza is awful.
Click to expand...

Godfather's Pizza is a successful business, is it not? The CEO has to meet a payroll, balance a budget, and make a profit.
Sounds like more experience than the current POTUS had.

We could use someone in the WH who knows how to do the above.

But, unfortunately, you're probably right that he has no chance, never having held political office.
 
I have not found a Muslim that has said that they will denounce Sharia law, you know, in order to support the Constitution of the United States
Click to expand...

He's basically claiming that all muslims hold sharia over the constitution, even though not a muslim in the US has a sharia court. He has not met a muslim - wait, let's get this right "found" - meaning he has not even heard/read of a muslim who will denounce sharia to support the constitution. As if there not millions of muslims who support the constitution and go without sharia law. He ignores even those who have sworn an oath to the constitution. Perhaps he should be introduced to a muslim member of the US military.

Let's recap his excuses:

1. Prefers cabinet of yes-men.
2. The bigotry is based in willful ignorance.


With his second excuse, he's basically accused every US muslim of treason.

He's got no shot.
 
Last edited:
Barbbtx said:
They chose McCain. The only thing he did right was choose Palin. :)

xpiher said:
Thats one of the reasons he lost, you do know that right?
Click to expand...

absolutely not. she's the only reason some even bothered going to the polls. Mccain was a loser.
Click to expand...

No offense Im just being as honest as possible but I have absolutely no words to describe this type of delusion and total lack of reality, its as if some of your posts live and breathe in a vortex of bias, non-objective, partisan, hyperbole and yet at the same time you are totally void of any reality of such.

Its quite shocking and staggering at times.:shock:
 
ecofarm said:
He's basically claiming that all muslims hold sharia over the constitution, even though not a muslim in the US has a sharia court. He has not met a muslim - wait, let's get this right "found" - meaning he has not even heard/read of a muslim who will denounce sharia to support the constitution. As if there not millions of muslims who support the constitution and go without sharia law. He ignores even those who have sworn an oath to the constitution. Perhaps he should be introduced to a muslim member of the US military.

Let's recap his excuses:

1. Prefers cabinet of yes-men.
2. The bigotry is based in willful ignorance.


With his second excuse, he's basically accused every US muslim of treason.

He's got no shot.
Click to expand...

So answer his question. Can someone swear in on a quran and be trusted to follow American law over sharia law?
As far as having yes men in your cabinet, there are people in Obama's cabinet that he's never even talked to in 2 plus years. He gets his advise from the likes of Union Thug Richard Trumpka and any number of radical czars that hold his same values.
I have no problem with Cain wanting to do the same. He wants to be 100% sure that those he appoints will uphold our laws and Constitution. He wants them to be on the same page he is.
 
Centrist77 said:
No offense Im just being as honest as possible but I have absolutely no words to describe this type of delusion and total lack of reality, its as if some of your posts live and breathe in a vortex of bias, non-objective, partisan, hyperbole and yet at the same time you are totally void of any reality of such.

Its quite shocking and staggering at times.:shock:
Click to expand...

Realistically, the voters he lost by picking Palin as his VP he gained by picking her. Meaning the number of voters he lost for picking her, he gained from voters he didn't have in the first place.
 
Centrist77 said:
No offense Im just being as honest as possible but I have absolutely no words to describe this type of delusion and total lack of reality, its as if some of your posts live and breathe in a vortex of bias, non-objective, partisan, hyperbole and yet at the same time you are totally void of any reality of such.

Its quite shocking and staggering at times.:shock:
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I didn't buy into the smear campaign on Palin. She is a true conservative and a great American, who is quite intelligent. She energized me enough to vote in 2008. Of course I didn't know just how bad Obama would be. I thought he couldn't be much worse than McCain. Anyway, I did vote for McCain, and it was less painful because she was on the ticket.
 
Barbbtx said:
Sorry, but I didn't buy into the smear campaign on Palin. She is a true conservative and a great American, who is quite intelligent. She energized me enough to vote in 2008.
Click to expand...

And yet you choose an unknown over Palin this time around.............................. What soured you on Palin? :sun
 
Centrist77 said:
the problem with that is shouldn't that be his thought process for EVERYONE, not just Muslims?
While I agree 100% with you last statement theres a poster in this very thread who as said many times his bible is more important than the constitution or the united states, and thats fine thats his right but his religion would never be question because its christian thus the issue people are having with the statement.
Click to expand...

:shrug: well, I would imagine that while such a poster is correct in their personal life, they would be remiss indeed if they were not willing to enforce the laws of the nation first. Either be willing to enforce the laws of the nation and only the nation, or refuse to take the position - those are the only two legitimate positions.

the problem with comparing the two faiths, is that the founder of Christianity specifically made the point of arguing that government and faith should be seperate, while the founder of Islam made the opposite argument.

It is possible to fully live a Christian faith in a 'Christian' country with an utterly secularist government. the same is not true of Islam - as it is antithetical to the teachings of that faith.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: well, I would imagine that while such a poster is correct in their personal life, they would be remiss indeed if they were not willing to enforce the laws of the nation first. Either be willing to enforce the laws of the nation and only the nation, or refuse to take the position - those are the only two legitimate positions.

the problem with comparing the two faiths, is that the founder of Christianity specifically made the point of arguing that government and faith should be seperate, while the founder of Islam made the opposite argument.

It is possible to fully live a Christian faith in a 'Christian' country with an utterly secularist government. the same is not true of Islam - as it is antithetical to the teachings of that faith.
Click to expand...

That is one of the big differences between Western culture and that of the Muslims. It took a while for Christians to get that way, but separation of church and state (even if that phrase is not in the US Constitution) is an important part of our culture now.

Maybe one day the Muslims will follow suit, but as of now they seem to want to have a government run at least in part by the clergy. They will never be free as long as that is the case, regardless of the so called "Muslim spring". Maybe one day they will realize it.

Yet, individual Muslims seem to like it here in the US, where they can practice their religion, sans the stoning of adulterers and so on, yet not have it a part of the government.
 
DashingAmerican said:
Realistically, the voters he lost by picking Palin as his VP he gained by picking her. Meaning the number of voters he lost for picking her, he gained from voters he didn't have in the first place.
Click to expand...

realistically not true, he lost more "votes", she help gain some popularity and mommentum and offered a twist but that QUICKLY wore off after she talked and even her own party decided she shouldnt talk and should be low key
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom