Will you vote for Herman Cain in the primary?

I am against nation building because it is a form of international welfare and doesn't help us.

Click to expand...

As an international welfarist, my safety net is minimal - democracy and basic human rights. I see it as a rational compromise needed for the system to work (like basic education for an informed consumer). It does help me when my brothers are liberated. I sleep better.

ecofarm said:

As an international welfarist, my safety net is minimal - democracy and basic human rights.

It does help me when my brothers are liberated. I sleep better.

Click to expand...

I believe Iraqi intervention was necessary(there WAS chemical weapons), as was setting up elections and government. Was building the country again necessary?

Lakryte said:

With that said, even if Paul had a foreign policy I disagreed with 100%, I would still vote for Paul because Cain wont even say what his is. Plus, this election my key issue is the economy. Paul is the strongest on that issue. Hermain Cain said his plan won't work now...which makes little sense. I honestly don't think he knows what he is talking about, and I question his motives.

Click to expand...

Not all... Cain's foreign policy is more honest then any other attempt in US history... if you dont know why, you arnt thinking hard enough.
There is a reason Obama completely flip-flopped on his foreign policy going into presidency... it's because he became president and was informed on everything that is going down... not the random media speculations. There is no way you can understand the actual issue unless you are the president of the US because of national security. I have a friend who knows two south African secret operatives and they have said the world only knows half the story on everything and how close things come to catastrophe in certain areas every week.

This is why Cain's intuition on foreign policy is the best any american can ask for... he will listen to the experts and make an informed logical decision on everything from there based on good american values... he's not pretending to know what it's gonna be like to be president.

JohnWOlin said:

Yeah I will agree with the other guys if I had to choose Paul or Cain I would say Paul 100%. He is the only Republican I can think of that I 100% agree with on some things such as war on drugs, foreign policy, auditing the fed (although dismantling it not so much). However I don't agree with most of his social values, education, and how he views the economy overall. If the Tea Party had never been hijacked by Fox News and sorts like that, he would be their leader, then again the Tea Party also would have never gained such prominence either....

Click to expand...

Ron Paul is in favor of repealing the 16th amendndment.
Do you support this?

Was building the country again necessary?

Click to expand...

Again? It was a pile of intellectual ash left by Stalin-like tyranny and actual genocide.

Getting it into some kind of basic shape was needed. The democratic infrastructure was minimal and the existence of educated free-thinkers almost non. Saddam was allowed to slaughter anyone who was bright and progressive for too long, and intellectual Iraq was left a wasteland. Free press, free elections and such were nearly alien. It was an almost insurmountable task, but Iraq is some semblence of a democracy (as crooked as the leaders may be) and has some basic human rights. I think they will progress now, after decades of stagnation.

Iran will be much easier as there remains intellectuals, professors, students and businessmen who are not fanatic to the regime. We've seen their protests.

celticwar17 said:

Not all... Cain's foreign policy is more honest then any other attempt in US history... if you dont know why, you arnt thinking hard enough.
There is a reason Obama completely flip-flopped on is foreign policy going into presidency... it's because he became president and was informed on everything that is going down... not the random media speculations. There is no way you can understand the actual issue unless you are the president of the US because of national security. I have a friend who knows two south African secret operatives and they have said the world only knows half the story on everything and how close things come to catastrophe in certain areas every week.

This is why Cain's intuition on foreign policy is the best any american can ask for... he will listen to the experts and make an informed logical decision on everything from there based on good american values... he's not pretending to know what it's gonna be like to be president.

Click to expand...

I actually have the exact look on american foreign policy as Cain has, and i have for the last few years... i rarely blame the decisions of presidents on foreign policy's(because i don't know 50% of what actually is the problem or the dire straghts involved... just media speculation and announcements), but i do blame the outcome and execution of these decision's.

Zyphlin said:

Ron Paul, with regards to the Middle East and the "blame america first" label, suffers the same issue as people who suggest women should avoid dark alleys, going out alone, and wearing extremely revealing clothing if they get raped and spend 99% of the time talking about all the bad decisions the women made and 1% of the time talking about the guy that actually DID the raping.

Even if his intent is honest and correct, which it is, like so many things with Ron Paul he blows at attempting to explain it to a lay person. Its his absolute, without a doubt, biggest issue and why he's never going to be a viable Presidential candidate.

That said, I actually agree with ARC for once. One of Paul's greatest assets and worst vices at the same time were his supporters. Its no where near as bad with Cain fans at the moment, but if it starts going down that path its going to be bad news for Cain.

Click to expand...

Cain does have something like 200,000 volunteers, I think. However, they are going to be needed since the coctail republicans aren't going to him a chance to get any name recognition. Also, there is this. Something that should frighten all of us. Everytime we talk unfavorably about Obama, someone from his team (payed for by taxpayers?) will respond. At least that's the way I'm understanding it.
White House Beefs Up Online Rapid Response

ecofarm said:

Again? It was a pile of intellectual ash left by Stalin-like tyranny and actual genocide.

Getting it into some kind of basic shape was needed. The democratic infrastructure was minimal and the existence of educated free-thinkers almost non. Saddam was allowed to slaughter anyone who was bright and progressive for too long, and intellectual Iraq was left a wasteland. Free press, free elections and such were nearly alien. It was an almost insurmountable task, but Iraq is some semblence of a democracy (as crooked as the leaders may be) and has some basic human rights. I think they will progress now, after decades of stagnation.

Iran will be much easier as there remains intellectuals, professors, students and businessmen who are not fanatic to the regime. We've seen their protests.

Click to expand...

There are a ton of countries that could use our help. Nothing wrong with establishing democracy and free elections. I don't think we needed to stay around and help them progress(as friendly as it would have been), after all they are automatically better off without Saddam. As much as I would like to help them progress with their society, we don't need to put soldiers at risk(and many have died during the "nation building" phase) and spend billions of tax money on it.

There are a ton of countries that could use our help.

Click to expand...

I think we should prioritize according to the nation's ability to build itself, both in social and natural resources. That way, we don't go broke.

we don't need to put soldiers at risk

Click to expand...

I agree that using soldiers as police officers is wrong. We need a new method regarding that. Obviously, the first try at major nation building was not a perfect success. Perhaps a military unit/division specific to such missions or a plan to support infrastructure and training intensively at the local level. We disbanded/outlawed/stigmatized much of the existing security stuff thinking there was better to be found.

Barbbtx said:

At least that's the way I'm understanding it.

Click to expand...

If by understanding it you mean that you don't understand it then you are absolutely correct.

Barbbtx said:

Cain does have something like 200,000 volunteers, I think. However, they are going to be needed since the coctail republicans aren't going to him a chance to get any name recognition. Also, there is this. Something that should frighten all of us. Everytime we talk unfavorably about Obama, someone from his team (payed for by taxpayers?) will respond. At least that's the way I'm understanding it.
White House Beefs Up Online Rapid Response

Click to expand...

Lesson 1 you can learn from Ron Paul supporter failings.

Stop with the "woe is us", "they meany head media/republicans/sheeple won't cover us the right way", victim mentality thing. Its not going to win you support or get people going "oh, poor Cain, he's so abused, we should give him a look." Its just going to make people roll their eyes and move on. It happened with Paul, and you're walking down that same road.

He wants attention, then take it and make a stake for it. Considering he's already being treated far better than Paul did in the last election cycle, I wouldn't start going down that road.

glen65 said:

Ron Paul is in favor of repealing the 16th amendndment.
Do you support this?

Click to expand...

No I don't, however it is my understanding Paul is against it because it is supposedly unconstitutional, not because he wouldn't still have the federal government tax us.

glen65 said:

Ron Paul is in favor of repealing the 16th amendndment.
Do you support this?

Click to expand...

I do. It will have to be repealed before a fair tax can be implemented

celticwar17 said:

Not all... Cain's foreign policy is more honest then any other attempt in US history... if you dont know why, you arnt thinking hard enough.
There is a reason Obama completely flip-flopped on his foreign policy going into presidency... it's because he became president and was informed on everything that is going down... not the random media speculations. There is no way you can understand the actual issue unless you are the president of the US because of national security. I have a friend who knows two south African secret operatives and they have said the world only knows half the story on everything and how close things come to catastrophe in certain areas every week.

This is why Cain's intuition on foreign policy is the best any american can ask for... he will listen to the experts and make an informed logical decision on everything from there based on good american values... he's not pretending to know what it's gonna be like to be president.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that is a very honest policy. How can Cain not have any opinion at all? We know there are revolutions going on in the middle east, we know many things, and of course we do not know everything. But to say since I do not know 100% everything therefore I will form no opinion seems very suspicious to me. He doesn't know 100% about the economy, yet he forms economic opinions. Tell me: what exactly does he need to know that prevents him from making a general opinion? For example, does he think the US should go in and nation build, or engage in noninterventionism? What is his philosophy? My feeling is that Cain has no clue about foreign policy simply because he has never held public office and probably never looks at that issue. You don't need to go look at secret records to determine what you want the role of the US to be. They can help in very specific cases, but that is ignoring the big picture. For example, I don't have a clue what a random shoemaker in New York is doing with his business. But does that mean I cannot form an economic opinion because I am not omniscient? Cain's argument makes sense initially, but if you look at it is fallacious. It boils down to saying that "I am not omniscient, so I will not state an opinion." But he will never be omniscient; there will always be something he doesn't know. Good leaders make informed decisions based on what they do know, and adapt to new information. Cain is hiding something.