• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Cain Brain Freeze Worse Than Perry's

Medleyrelay said:
Compared to a community organizer I'll take a business person to improve our economy any day.
Click to expand...
The point being that business experience does not at all mean that they have the ability to improve the national economy. Handling business accounts is a whole separate thing from handling a country's economy.
Doesn't mean that a business leader couldn't improve the economy either.
 
Medleyrelay said:
Compared to a community organizer I'll take a business person to improve our economy any day.
Click to expand...
At least he was politically savvy. I see no evidence Cain can improve the economy.
 
In some ways, I can feel for him on there. The start was a rather open ended question. That said, if he wanted to pin point exact things so as not to fall in a trap, do it immedietely. Or better yet, KNOW the things you agree and disagree with him about and go right into that. It was just the long fidgeting, moving, eye rolling, etc that was the worst.

Also, Cain really does keep falling back into cliche's he uses. Once again its the "Well, first I'd know the problem"...its his solution to everything, which really isn't a solution but a process, which says at this point you've got no idea what your solution may be.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
The point being that business experience does not at all mean that they have the ability to improve the national economy. Handling business accounts is a whole separate thing from handling a country's economy.
Doesn't mean that a business leader couldn't improve the economy either.
Click to expand...
Managing the economy is just one aspect of being POTUS. Foreign policy experience is another and Cain reveals serious flaws in that regard.
 
Zyphlin said:
Also, Cain really does keep falling back into cliche's he uses. Once again its the "Well, first I'd know the problem"...its his solution to everything, which really isn't a solution but a process, which says at this point you've got no idea what your solution may be.
Click to expand...

What's bizarre to me is that he seems to think HIS process is somehow new or unique. You mean you would ... consult with your staff ... and then make decisions based on ... what they told you?! BRILLIANT!! Really?
 
Zyphlin said:
....texas?
Click to expand...
I can't really be expected to read every single word of SB' posts, can I?
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I think it is. How far back in U. S. history do you have to go back to find a businessman with no political experience who became president? They don't become president because it's easy to expose their ineptness on politics.
Click to expand...
Just because you can't remember one doing so, doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to happen.
Before 2008, one could have just as easily said, "How far back in U. S. history do you have to go back to find a black guy who became president?"
 
AdamT said:
What's bizarre to me is that he seems to think HIS process is somehow new or unique. You mean you would ... consult with your staff ... and then make decisions based on ... what they told you?! BRILLIANT!! Really?
Click to expand...
But he said that he would do it better than Obama did--that's the difference.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
But he said that he would do it better than Obama did--that's the difference.
Click to expand...
Better ... how? He said he would listen to his advisors but he doesn't know if Obama did, so he can't really claim superiority there. He said he would have determined who would take over, but again, he doesn't know Obama didn't, so he can't claim superiority there either. In a nutshell, it took him several minutes to make an empty claim that he could have done a better job than Obama, who got the job done successfully. :roll:
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Better ... how? He said he would listen to his advisors but he doesn't know if Obama did, so he can't really claim superiority there. He said he would have determined who would take over, but again, he doesn't know Obama didn't, so he can't claim superiority there either. In a nutshell, it took him several minutes to make an empty claim that he could have done a better job than Obama, who got the job done successfully. :roll:
Click to expand...

As usual with these sorts of interviews, the reporter failed to ask inciteful follow-up questions. Cain's main point was that he would want to know who the rebels were. How about asking something like, "by all accounts it appears as though there was limited information about the rebels -- who they were and what they intended to do if they won. Given that level of uncertainty, would you have acted differently? Would you have allowed Gaddafi to wipe them out because the CIA could't produce their resumes?"
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Managing the economy is just one aspect of being POTUS. Foreign policy experience is another and Cain reveals serious flaws in that regard.
Click to expand...

obama and cain both suck at foreign policy.

The first day obama took office, he called several world leaders, or so he thought. When it came to the Palestinian people, he did not call the PNA's legitimate democratically elected PM, Ismail Haniyeh. Instead, he called his defeated opposition leader, Mahmoud Abbas?!

That's equivalent to calling Segolene Royal instead of Nicolas Sarkozy or Gerhard Schroder instead of Angela Merkel.
 
solletica said:
obama and cain both suck at foreign policy.

The first day obama took office, he called several world leaders, or so he thought. When it came to the Palestinian people, he did not call the PNA's legitimate democratically elected PM, Ismail Haniyeh. Instead, he called his defeated opposition leader, Mahmoud Abbas?!

That's equivalent to calling Segolene Royal instead of Nicolas Sarkozy or Gerhard Schroder instead of Angela Merkel.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a rookie mistake, if true, but overall I think Obama has been very good on foreign policy. He improved a rapidly deteriorating relationship with Russia, got us off the North Korea threat->bribe->threat->bribe merry-go-round, struck an appropriate balance re: the Arab Spring, and made the right decisions on Libya.
 
Dav said:
It's been obvious from day 1 that Cain is clueless. Absolutely clueless. He almost always reverts to talking points and/or switches the subject to "999" rather than give any insight into any policy, foreign or domestic. I honestly think even Bachmann would be a better candidate than him. I really hope that his polling hurries back into the single digits where it belongs.
Click to expand...

I don't know why people like Cain even decide to run for the highest office in this country. From the 999 plan to his scripted talking points on foreign policy and other economic issues, its abundantly clear that he hasn't done the homework that's even necessary for him to form opinions on important issues that a President should know about.
 
solletica said:
obama and cain both suck at foreign policy.

The first day obama took office, he called several world leaders, or so he thought. When it came to the Palestinian people, he did not call the PNA's legitimate democratically elected PM, Ismail Haniyeh. Instead, he called his defeated opposition leader, Mahmoud Abbas?!

That's equivalent to calling Segolene Royal instead of Nicolas Sarkozy or Gerhard Schroder instead of Angela Merkel.
Click to expand...

That has more to do with the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization more than anything else. In addition, the position of Prime Minister was in dispute at the time, so it's not exactly analogous to your French Sarkozy analogy. The international community recognizes Abbas's legitimacy and not Haniyeh's, so that's essentially why Obama called the former and not the latter.
 
Last edited:
Yep...Cain's an idiot...he paused 11 seconds.

No way he beats the crease in Obama's pants.
 
nota bene said:
That was painful to watch. I stopped at 1:02. Should he be elected, Cain would have to surround himself with experts. That's what Presidents do anyway. It's no secret that that he needs to study up on foreign policy. But I wouldn't say that he's clueless. Someone such as Huntsman or Bush the Elder have a much more sophisticated understanding, obviously, that a businessman or former governor who hasn't served in a foreign post.

The question for any successful President is can he or she learn? Choose wise counselors?
Click to expand...

Should he learn? Definitely. Everyone should learn and brush up on these things for their own benefit. Should he do it AFTER he gets into the Oval Office? I'm personally of the opinion that if he were serious about wanting to be President, he would've done his homework BEFORE he started showing his face on television. Its abundantly clear to me that his rhetoric consists of little more than scripted and rehearsed talking points. No real personal insight into real problems, because he hasn't done his homework.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Sounds like a rookie mistake, if true, but overall I think Obama has been very good on foreign policy.
Click to expand...

No, he sucked, just as much as every other Pres before him in the last 40 years.

Obama did nothing more than maintain the Neocon status-quo. The dissing of Haniyeh was just a tip of the iceberg in terms of how he dealth w/the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Obama has done absolutely nothing different than bush on this issue except merely talk less tough toward Arabs. Big whoopie :rolleyes:

AdamT said:
He improved a rapidly deteriorating relationship with Russia, got us off the North Korea threat->bribe->threat->bribe merry-go-round, struck an appropriate balance re: the Arab Spring, and made the right decisions on Libya.
Click to expand...

The US government's relationship w/Russia is the same as it's always been, mainly because US/Western oil firms profit nicely from that nation's oil reserves.

And there is no "Arab Spring." That term is just a pigment of the mainstream media's imagination. There is merely implicit and explicit support of the US government for the popular overthrow of dictators the US government doesn't like. There will be no "spring" for Uncle Sam's favorite monarchies. . .

The newspaper said the decision to hire the contingent of foreign troops was taken before a wave of popular unrest spread across the Arab world in recent months, including to the UAE's Gulf neighbors Bahrain, Oman and Saudi Arabia.

Erik Prince, Blackwater Founder, Sets Up Secret Desert Force In United Arab Emirates
Click to expand...
 
solletica said:
No, he sucked, just as much as every other Pres before him in the last 40 years.

Obama did nothing more than maintain the Neocon status-quo. The dissing of Haniyeh was just a tip of the iceberg in terms of how he dealth w/the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Obama has done absolutely nothing different than bush on this issue except merely talk less tough toward Arabs. Big whoopie :rolleyes:



The US government's relationship w/Russia is the same as it's always been, mainly because US/Western oil firms profit nicely from that nation's oil reserves.

And there is no "Arab Spring." That term is just a pigment of the mainstream media's imagination. There is merely implicit and explicit support of the US government for the popular overthrow of dictators the US government doesn't like. There will be no "spring" for Uncle Sam's favorite monarchies. . .
Click to expand...

Right...because we absolutely hated Mubarak, right? And we threw out Gaddaffi - someone who had been cooperating with us just a few months earlier - just for fun, is it? It's not as black and white as you're making it out to be.
 
StillBallin75 said:
That has more to do with the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization more than anything else.
Click to expand...

Mahmoud's Fatah is also a terrorist organization, and so is the Israeli government. Both organizations have been involved in targeting and killing innocent civilians, i. e. terrorism.

What you meant to say was that the Neocon establishment prefers to refer to HAMAS as terrorists and Israel as a "legitimate" country. And from a foreign policy point of view, such bigotry is not just irrelevant, but counterproductive, because it obscures the truth.

StillBallin75 said:
In addition, the position of Prime Minister was in dispute at the time,
Click to expand...

There was no dispute as to which was democratically elected. HAMAS was, and Fatah was not. So any politician that claims to respect democracy should have seen Haniyeh as the legitimate leader.

StillBallin75 said:
so it's not exactly analogous to your French Sarkozy analogy. The international community recognizes Abbas's legitimacy and not Haniyeh's,
Click to expand...

Are you sure it's the "international community"? Is it true that people all over the world feel that way,

or are you merely assuming that the US government's perspective officially represents the international community?
 
Last edited:
solletica said:
Mahmoud's Fatah is also a terrorist organization, and so is the Israeli government. Both organizations have been involved in targeting and killing innocent civilians, i. e. terrorism.

What you meant to say was that the Neocon establishment prefers to refer to HAMAS as terrorists and Israel as a "legitimate" country. And from a foreign policy point of view, such bigotry is not just irrelevant, but counterproductive, because it obscures the truth.


In addition, the position of Prime Minister was in dispute at the time, so it's not exactly analogous to your French Sarkozy analogy. The international community recognizes Abbas's legitimacy and not Haniyeh's, so that's essentially why Obama called the former and not the latter.
Click to expand...

Alright, sure. Just let it be known that the reason Obama called Abbas and not Haniyeh had nothing to do with him not realizing that Haniyeh had won the election.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Should he learn? Definitely. Everyone should learn and brush up on these things for their own benefit. Should he do it AFTER he gets into the Oval Office? I'm personally of the opinion that if he were serious about wanting to be President, he would've done his homework BEFORE he started showing his face on television. Its abundantly clear to me that his rhetoric consists of little more than scripted and rehearsed talking points. No real personal insight into real problems, because he hasn't done his homework.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right...but seriously...how can he not know that china has had nukes for decades and how can he NOT be aware of Libya and what obama did...every single person on this forum couldve answered that question for gods sakes...
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I think it is. How far back in U. S. history do you have to go back to find a businessman with no political experience who became president? They don't become president because it's easy to expose their ineptness on politics.
Click to expand...

Not to support can, but your statement sure shows your liberalism ..... like our country has or is doing so well . with "experienced" politicians running it. 15 trillion dollars in debt, fighting in 3 different wars .... 9% unemployment, (much higher in reality) so much corruption in government that it's no longer even funny, economy flat and best, and losing ground in all probability ...... yeah .. I can see where we should be looking at those that are "experienced" in politics .. they have done such a good job so far..
 
lpast said:
You are absolutely right...but seriously...how can he not know that china has had nukes for decades and how can he NOT be aware of Libya and what obama did...every single person on this forum couldve answered that question for gods sakes...
Click to expand...

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the nukes and assume it was just a gaffe. But there are definitely folks on this forum - on both sides - who are a hell of a lot more informed than he is on the issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom