• 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!

Top Dem picks Huntsman

ptif219 said:
When liberal democrats say who they like as GOP candidate that sends up red flags for me. I would much rather see Cain or Bachman or Perry
Click to expand...

So no government or executive experience, no executive experience and even less relevant congressional experience than Obama for just a few years longer, and a guy whose not actually running yet.

Tell me, were you one critical of Obama's experience in 2008?
 
ptif219 said:
I would look at his record. Huntsman is not a conservative. We need a conservative not a moderate that leans heavily to the left
Click to expand...

Is Palin a Conservative? Honest question to get your idea of what a "conservative" is.
 
Zyphlin said:
So no government or executive experience, no executive experience and even less relevant congressional experience than Obama for just a few years longer, and a guy whose not actually running yet.

Tell me, were you one critical of Obama's experience in 2008?
Click to expand...

Yes I was but I was more critical of his associations.

If you mean Cain he has leadership and financial experience and was not raised privileged like Obama.
 
ptif219 said:
She has many conservative views.
Click to expand...

So you'd say someone who, during the same time she was governor, was rated as the best governor in the country regarding taxes and top 5 regarding total fiscal issues. Each year while she was in office her Budget grew roughly 0.8 billion where as this persons was 1.2 billion, not that far off from each other. However, the budget as a percentage of GDP, this individuals number actually went down while Palin's went up. Meaning that Palin's government spending grew in relation to her states economy this persons spending shurnk. Lets say this individual's state was routinely ranked as a top 3 place to do business, even coming in as number 1 once, and he was known for being very pro-business and business conscience in many of his policies.

You'd consider that person not to be, at the very least, an average Fiscally and Governmentally Conservative individual if not a stuanch conservative on those issues? And if not, how in the world could you consider Palin as having primarily fiscally conservative views in comparison?
 
Zyphlin said:
So you'd say someone who, during the same time she was governor, was rated as the best governor in the country regarding taxes and top 5 regarding total fiscal issues. Each year while she was in office her Budget grew roughly 0.8 billion where as this persons was 1.2 billion, not that far off from each other. However, the budget as a percentage of GDP, this individuals number actually went down while Palin's went up. Meaning that Palin's government spending grew in relation to her states economy this persons spending shurnk. Lets say this individual's state was routinely ranked as a top 3 place to do business, even coming in as number 1 once, and he was known for being very pro-business and business conscience in many of his policies.

You'd consider that person not to be, at the very least, an average Fiscally and Governmentally Conservative individual if not a stuanch conservative on those issues? And if not, how in the world could you consider Palin as having primarily fiscally conservative views in comparison?
Click to expand...

You cherry pick and use that as proof? Palin also made oil companies pay
 
ptif219 said:
If you mean Cain he has leadership and financial experience and was not raised privileged like Obama.
Click to expand...

Leadership experience? I guess we should start electing captains of football teams and heads of charitable organizations as President because they obviously have enough experience because they've got "leadership" experience. And his financial experience has little to nothing to do with experience regarding the finances of the government. This is no more legitimate then people throwing out Obama's "constitutional experience" because he was a professor and his "leadership" experience as a community organizer.
 
ptif219 said:
You cherry pick and use that as proof? Palin also made oil companies pay
Click to expand...

I cherry pick by pointing at:

1. Cutting taxes
2. Growing the economy
3. Reducing the proportional amount government spends
4. Incentivising business growth

Yes, how horrible that I "cherry pick" directly conservative things that he was on par if not better than Palin on. Silly me, I should've talked about what he did with Utah's oil fields because....um....they have oil fields in Utah?

Labeling this guy as a left leaning moderate is so ridiculously unrealistic its laughable. You want to talk about cherry picking? People latch onto two things, one of which he's since said he doesn't feel is something to be done at this time, and use that to claim he's a "left leaning moderate" on fiscal and social issues while ignoreing EVERYTHING else he does, and then combine that with his social stance while completely ignoring his conservative foreign policy (Supports Israel strongly, feels strong need to get NK to be rid of nukes, etc) to attempt to say he's a "left leaning moderate".

Sorry, THAT'S cherry picking.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Leadership experience? I guess we should start electing captains of football teams and heads of charitable organizations as President because they obviously have enough experience because they've got "leadership" experience. And his financial experience has little to nothing to do with experience regarding the finances of the government. This is no more legitimate then people throwing out Obama's "constitutional experience" because he was a professor and his "leadership" experience as a community organizer.
Click to expand...

You can justify all you want But cain nows how to run a company and show a profit that means a balanced budget. All Obama nows is to print more money annd SPEND,SPEND,Spend
 
Zyphlin said:
I cherry pick by pointing at:

1. Cutting taxes
2. Growing the economy
3. Reducing the proportional amount government spends
4. Incentivising business growth

Yes, how horrible that I "cherry pick" directly conservative things that he was on par if not better than Palin on. Silly me, I should've talked about what he did with Utah's oil fields because....um....they have oil fields in Utah?

Labeling this guy as a left leaning moderate is so ridiculously unrealistic its laughable. You want to talk about cherry picking? People latch onto two things, one of which he's since said he doesn't feel is something to be done at this time, and use that to claim he's a "left leaning moderate" on fiscal and social issues while ignoreing EVERYTHING else he does, and then combine that with his social stance while completely ignoring his conservative foreign policy (Supports Israel strongly, feels strong need to get NK to be rid of nukes, etc) to attempt to say he's a "left leaning moderate".

Sorry, THAT'S cherry picking.
Click to expand...

Palin Boosted Oil-Company Taxes While Alaska Had Budget Surplus - Bloomberg

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who has joined the Republican national ticket as a tax-cutter, was a driving force in raising a tax on oil companies last year that will help swell the state's budget surplus.

The increase backed by the Republican vice presidential nominee will, at current prices, raise oil revenue to $11 billion this year -- almost twice what the state needs to fund its government -- state documents show. Alaska also has gotten more money from the federal government than its residents pay in taxes -- $1.75 per tax dollar in 2006, the most recent year available, according to the Tax Foundation, a Washington research group.
 
ptif219 said:
You can justify all you want But cain nows how to run a company and show a profit that means a balanced budget. All Obama nows is to print more money annd SPEND,SPEND,Spend
Click to expand...

"It mattered for the other guy but my guys DIFFFFFERENT"

Gotcha. Lack of Experience matters...if you're a democrat. If you're a republican we make excuses for why it doesn't matter.
 
ptif219 said:
Palin Boosted Oil-Company Taxes While Alaska Had Budget Surplus - Bloomberg

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who has joined the Republican national ticket as a tax-cutter, was a driving force in raising a tax on oil companies last year that will help swell the state's budget surplus.

The increase backed by the Republican vice presidential nominee will, at current prices, raise oil revenue to $11 billion this year -- almost twice what the state needs to fund its government -- state documents show. Alaska also has gotten more money from the federal government than its residents pay in taxes -- $1.75 per tax dollar in 2006, the most recent year available, according to the Tax Foundation, a Washington research group.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Further showing Huntsman conservative Fiscal and Government credentials compared to someone I've never heard you or others refer to as a "moderate left leaning" Republican.
 
Zyphlin said:
"It mattered for the other guy but my guys DIFFFFFERENT"

Gotcha. Lack of Experience matters...if you're a democrat. If you're a republican we make excuses for why it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

I see we want more life long politicians that have screwed up this country. Cain has through his life shown he can fix companies with financial problems. He is a leader and loves this country. I do not hear Cain apologizing for this country.
 
Zyphlin said:
Gotcha. Further showing Huntsman conservative Fiscal and Government credentials compared to someone I've never heard you or others refer to as a "moderate left leaning" Republican.
Click to expand...

So now that I proved she paid for her spending you go another direction. You sound like you are defending liberals and democrats not supprting conservatives.
 
Zyphlin I think what we are seeing is that you aren't a true conservative unless you are a social conservative and fiscal conservative and it is a shame. Which honestly, is what will hurt the GOP with independents. It seems like when McCain started going right on social areas is where he began to lose the independent vote. To me, it would be silly to not put some one up that has a record of good fiscal policy while in executive office and could help the financial situation of the country, but he doesn't get the nomination because his views of gay marriage and abortion do not jive with the rest of the party. Those two issues are probably the last thing on people's mind.

Also, what is a positive about Huntsman is that the Democrats and other left leaning groups will have a harder time going after him. The Citizens United case will change the way political ads run, but the President himself has such a lead in funds that no GOP member will catch up to him. Huntsman seems to be, so far, the type of candidate that not all billion of Obama's funds can be used for attack ads.
 
soccerboy22 said:
Zyphlin I think what we are seeing is that you aren't a true conservative unless you are a social conservative and fiscal conservative and it is a shame. Which honestly, is what will hurt the GOP with independents. It seems like when McCain started going right on social areas is where he began to lose the independent vote. To me, it would be silly to not put some one up that has a record of good fiscal policy while in executive office and could help the financial situation of the country, but he doesn't get the nomination because his views of gay marriage and abortion do not jive with the rest of the party. Those two issues are probably the last thing on people's mind.

Also, what is a positive about Huntsman is that the Democrats and other left leaning groups will have a harder time going after him. The Citizens United case will change the way political ads run, but the President himself has such a lead in funds that no GOP member will catch up to him. Huntsman seems to be, so far, the type of candidate that not all billion of Obama's funds can be used for attack ads.
Click to expand...

I posted this and it has been ignored

“Moderate” Jon Huntsman’s Record Scrutinized For 2012 Bid


Consider: Huntsman has supported unconstitutional cap-and-trade schemes that would drive up the costs of energy; individual health-care mandates similar to the one under attack in ObamaCare; civil unions for gay couples; amnesty for illegal immigrants; sovereignty-destroying “trade” agreements; and many other measures opposed by rank-and-file conservatives. Another big liability for Huntsman is the fact that he served in the Obama administration.

While Huntsman regularly touts his moderate tax-cutting credentials acquired during his time as governor of Utah, less well known is that state government spending increased wildly under his administration. According to a 2008 study by the liberty-minded Cato Institute, “Huntsman has completely dropped the ball on spending, with per capita spending increasing at about 10 percent annually during his tenure.”

His positions on discredited man-made global-warming theories and supposed “solutions” for the non-problem will represent a big challenge to overcome as well. In 2007, he appeared in a TV ad urging the U.S. government to impose an unconstitutional carbon regime on Americans. "Now it's time for Congress to act by capping greenhouse-gas pollution," he says in the advertisement, paid for by an extremist group known as Environmental Defense.

During his time as Governor of Utah, Huntsman also hitched the state to the Western Climate Initiative. The regional “cap and trade” scheme, involving various U.S. and Mexican states as well as some Canadian provinces, would dramatically increase energy costs in a supposed effort to battle “climate change.” Though Huntsman recently backed away from his global-warming alarmism, the stench of his record on the issues will probably be tough to shed.

In addition to negotiating the unconstitutional interstate climate compact with foreign authorities, Huntsman has impeccable “globalist” credentials in other areas as well. For example, he was a long-time member of the infamous, world-government promoting Council on Foreign Relations. He also served as a founding director of the Pacific Council on International Policy, an organization founded in 1995 in partnership with the CFR.
 
ptif219 said:
The pain he can not refute my links?
Click to expand...

No.

The pain of debating someone without an ounce of skill, knowledge, reason, critical thinking skills and the ability to understand even the most basic concepts of well... Anything.
 
ptif219 said:
I see we want more life long politicians that have screwed up this country. Cain has through his life shown he can fix companies with financial problems.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that is Zyphlin's point at all. Rather, he is pointing to the issue that Mr. Cain's experience may be overly narrow. The problems, tasks, and goals in running a business are far narrower than those involved in governance. The former are primarily economic/financial. The latter relate to economic, financial, defense, social welfare, foreign policy, etc., matters. In the former, the trade-offs are less numerous. In the latter, they are more numerous and also more complex. In business, one is dealing with customers and completely voluntary transactions. In the latter, one is dealing with constituents and the relationships are not always voluntary. In the former, a CEO can, in cases, impose decisions to break deadlocks. In the latter, Presidents must work with others e.g., Congress, to translate vision into policy. In the former, a CEO can enjoy long tenure so long as he/she retains the confidence of the Board (over which he/she might have had substantial influence in shaping). In the latter, electoral cycles are relevant.

To date, Herman Cain has not provided any indication that he can make the leap from business success to political success. In the most recent debate, his performance was quite superficial. He seemed out of his league offering some generalities but little of concrete substance.
 
So a politico in one corpgov party picks/says positive things, etc. about a politico in the other corpgov party. It's meaningless. Completely meaningless. In the end you/we are still dealing with corpgov. What you seem to be doing and what partisans of both parties do is no different than picking/backing one of two mafia families to help stop organized crime. I don't care which family you pick or the "leaders" you like, in the end you get one of the two crime families. Which crime family is it that is going to stop organized crime? Neither. But people continue to do as they've always done and things stay the same as they always have.
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
Consider: Huntsman has supported unconstitutional cap-and-trade schemes...
Click to expand...

Whatever one thinks about the viability of cap-and-trade, such a market-based approach has been used successfully in the past by the U.S. for dealing with such issues as sulfur dioxide emissions responsible for acid rain. If cap-and-trade wasn't unconsitutional then, it wouldn't be unconsitutional now. The area of debate is whether such an approach would be feasible when it relates to such a broad area of economic activity as would be entailed with carbon dioxide. In other words, would the cost-benefit calculus be different from what it was when the U.S. eliminated the use of CFCs, greatly reduced sulfur dioxide emissions, etc.

For example, he was a long-time member of the infamous, world-government promoting Council on Foreign Relations.
Click to expand...

There's nothing "infamous" or sinister about the Council on Foreign Relations. It is a long-established policy organization that aims to help its audience "better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries." The breadth of its membership includes some of the world's leading diplomats and foreign policy scholars from a range of foreign policy perspectives (liberal internationalist, realist, and neoconservative, among others).
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
No.

The pain of debating someone without an ounce of skill, knowledge, reason, critical thinking skills and the ability to understand even the most basic concepts of well... Anything.
Click to expand...


The problem is you have nothing to refute the facts i back up with links
 
donsutherland1 said:
I don't believe that is Zyphlin's point at all. Rather, he is pointing to the issue that Mr. Cain's experience may be overly narrow. The problems, tasks, and goals in running a business are far narrower than those involved in governance. The former are primarily economic/financial. The latter relate to economic, financial, defense, social welfare, foreign policy, etc., matters. In the former, the trade-offs are less numerous. In the latter, they are more numerous and also more complex. In business, one is dealing with customers and completely voluntary transactions. In the latter, one is dealing with constituents and the relationships are not always voluntary. In the former, a CEO can, in cases, impose decisions to break deadlocks. In the latter, Presidents must work with others e.g., Congress, to translate vision into policy. In the former, a CEO can enjoy long tenure so long as he/she retains the confidence of the Board (over which he/she might have had substantial influence in shaping). In the latter, electoral cycles are relevant.

To date, Herman Cain has not provided any indication that he can make the leap from business success to political success. In the most recent debate, his performance was quite superficial. He seemed out of his league offering some generalities but little of concrete substance.
Click to expand...

Well then in the debate he acted like a politician lol
 
donsutherland1 said:
Whatever one things about the viability of cap-and-trade, such a market-based approach has been used successfully in the past by the U.S. for dealing with such issues as sulfur dioxide emissions responsible for acid rain. If cap-and-trade wasn't unconsitutional then, it wouldn't be unconsitutional now. The area of debate is whether such an approach would be feasible when it relates to such a broad area of economic activity as would be entailed with carbon dioxide. In other words, would the cost-benefit calculus be different from what it was when the U.S. eliminated the use of CFCs, greatly reduced sulfur dioxide emissions, etc.



There's nothing "infamous" or sinister about the Council on Foreign Relations. It is a long-established policy organization that aims to help its audience "better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries." The breadth of its membership includes some of the world's leading diplomats and foreign policy scholars from a range of foreign policy perspectives (liberal internationalist, realist, and neoconservative, among others).
Click to expand...

You vote for a tax and spend liberal that is globalists that will cave into the UN issues I will not I want a conservative and I do not want to pay more taxes because of the GW scam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom