• 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!

Who do you think will win the Republican nomination?

Who do you think will win the Republican nomination?

  • Total voters
    70
cpwill said:
i don't even think it's a question of beating Obama. I think in 2012 it's a question of whether or not we can beat the unions.
Click to expand...

Cain's not afraid of the Unions. He's the only one who went to WI to stand with Scott Walker during the protests. He told people during his speech. Walker is not trying to bust up the Unions, he's trying to save Wisconsin.
 
Barbbtx said:
Cain's not afraid of the Unions. He's the only one who went to WI to stand with Scott Walker during the protests. He told people during his speech. Walker is not trying to bust up the Unions, he's trying to save Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

When was the last time a president had to take on a union nationally? Reagan?

I don't think it's an enduring issue Barb.
 
Kandahar said:
Who do you think will win the Republican nomination in 2012? (Not who you WANT to win.)
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to have this record to look back at later to see who was right in their guess. Thanks! :sun
 
Jetboogieman said:
When was the last time a president had to take on a union nationally? Reagan?

I don't think it's an enduring issue Barb.
Click to expand...

I just meant he's not afraid of Union thugs and what they can do to a campaign. He proved that when he stood with Scott Walker.
 
Barbbtx said:
I'm making my prediction right now. Let me introduce you to the next President of the United States of America!

http://citizens4cain.com/site/blog/...gagop-2011-state-convention-in-macon-georgia/
Click to expand...

I don't usually bet except on a sure thing but I would be willing to bet you he is not! How about if he wins, you get to pick an avatar that I must use for the first year of the presidency, if Obama wins, I get to pick the avatar you will use for a year?

Now, how confidant are you again that Cain will win? :sun
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
Ron Paul won't win against Obama either.
Click to expand...

I disagree... BECAUSE Ron Paul DOES have more of a broad appeal then most republicans... and where it's effectively neck and neck with the last 10% undecided.

Because they know what to expect with Obama many of those will turn to a republican, and even some typically democratic voters will want to move away from Obama.

That said, I agree that Ron Paul WILL NEVER be given a fair shot, so you might as well put up a dead horse and hope for the best...

Not like it matters though, Right or Left, they will both continue the wars, continue the torture, continue adding to the "security" of the nation (at the expense of human decency), the economy will continue to suck, no child left behind while not allowing any to get ahead, and it will be the same slow decline.
 
Catawba said:
I don't usually bet except on a sure thing but I would be willing to bet you he is not! How about if he wins, you to pick an avatar that I must use for the first year of the presidency, if Obama wins, I get to pick the avatar you will use for a year?

Now, how confidant are you again that Cain will win? :sun
Click to expand...

You're on!
 
Barbbtx said:
You're on!
Click to expand...

This will be fun!!! Let's see if we can get a moderator to verify and keep track of our bet in case one of us should try to weasel out of it after the election, K? :sun
 
Catawba said:
This will be fun!!! Let's see if we can get a moderator to verify and keep track of our bet in case one of us should try to weasel out of it after the election, K? :sun
Click to expand...

If he doesn't win the nomination (which he will) I'll even start my punishment early. It couldn't be any worse than the fat white butt with glasses avatar liblady gave me for a month. LOL
 
I'm all for Herman Cain. Who else am I going to support? Romney is just boring and he isn't very right-wing either. I rather have Obama for another 4 years, so he can feel the effect of his policies. We need someone that people can feel proud about. Ron Paul won't win because he is too old and too idealistic. Tim Pawlenty is also boring and looks like another classical politicians. For instance they interviewed him about the presidential race and he started talking about crisis management. Donald Trump is a joke candidate and Sarah Palin has too much baggage.
 
Camlon said:
I'm all for Herman Cain. Who else am I going to support? Romney is just boring and he isn't very right-wing either. I rather have Obama for another 4 years, so he can feel the effect of his policies. We need someone that people can feel proud about. Ron Paul won't win because he is too old and too idealistic. Tim Pawlenty is also boring and looks like another classical politicians. For instance they interviewed him about the presidential race and he started talking about crisis management. Donald Trump is a joke candidate and Sarah Palin has too much baggage.
Click to expand...
I agree with a good portion of your post, but I would not vote for Obama over a dog turd. :)
 
Barbbtx said:
I agree with a good portion of your post, but I would not vote for Obama over a dog turd. :)
Click to expand...

Ok this isn't so much a comment to this post but more about your sig :

Herman Cain:"I have two weaknesses that I know of, that I'm going to admit. One is, I'm not very good with political correctness. I kind of tell it like it is. And secondly, I don't pander real well."

Look at just this quote :
- That I'm going to admit : "I know I've got a ton more 'weaknesses' but most of those would get me thrown in jail."
- "I kind of tell it like it is" : "I'm so hard that I kinda feel bad when I have to sugarcoat"
- and then the full reversal on the previous part : "I don't pander real well"

Oh I can't wait for another walking contradiction to come around.
 
Barbbtx said:
Cain's not afraid of the Unions. He's the only one who went to WI to stand with Scott Walker during the protests. He told people during his speech. Walker is not trying to bust up the Unions, he's trying to save Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

:shrug: He went to Wi to give a speech? Well good for him - that shows positive political instincts and a willingness to be in the fight. But he was there to support Walker... and what Walker took a month to pull off? Mitch Daniels did that his very first day in office. :D

I don't think any of our candidates (with the possible exception of Romney) are going to be afraid of the unions - it's pretty much accepted at this point that they are merely an extension of the Democrat Party, most especially the public ones. The question is; this is their make or break year, and they are going to spend amazing amounts of cash on it. They will put their 2008 spending (which was massive) to shame - because they know a republican congress and white house is their death knell. can the candidate unify the party and the base and the independents enough to stand up to that.

my fear (and don't get me wrong, I like him) is that Cain cannot, simply because he lacks the political experience. Too many parts of the party (including myself) will support him.... mostly as a far better alternative to Obama. We've seen over the last four years what happens when someone with no experience get's into the White House, and while I would hope his (impressive) corporate experience would partially negate that.... I wouldn't be thrilled about repeating it. And I think there are many like me (folks usually do); and so I think a Cain Candidacy would put us in a weaker position vis-a-vie what we need to overcome the massive push that is coming.

I wouldn't mind seeing Cain as a Veep, I guess. That would capitalize his speaking ability, and put him in a position where he can be used by the President to attack domestic issues - he would be powerful spearheading the effort to create jobs in this country. But I would be uncomfortable with him as The Candidate.
 
Last edited:
Since this is who do you think will, not who you want to, I will go with Romney
 
even after he shot his campaign in the face by doubling down on the individual mandate?
 
cpwill said:
my fear (and don't get me wrong, I like him) is that Cain cannot, simply because he lacks the political experience. Too many parts of the party (including myself) will support him.... mostly as a far better alternative to Obama. We've seen over the last four years what happens when someone with no experience get's into the White House, and while I would hope his (impressive) corporate experience would partially negate that.... I wouldn't be thrilled about repeating it. And I think there are many like me (folks usually do); and so I think a Cain Candidacy would put us in a weaker position vis-a-vie what we need to overcome the massive push that is coming.
Click to expand...
I don't think the reason Obama failed was because he had no political eperience. He failed because he ran a platform on Hope and Change, when he actually wanted left-wing politics. He is also quite arrogant and you can see that he is pretending.

Republicans need a good speaker to win the presidental race and to beat Obama. Herman Cain is a good speaker. Mitt Romney is not a good speaker and he is RINO. He just changed his positions to get more votes. He will be an embarrasment for the republican party, because he will make the GOP look weak. Herman Cain, even if he lose will give Obama a tough match.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
i don't even think it's a question of beating Obama. I think in 2012 it's a question of whether or not we can beat the unions.
Click to expand...

Beat the unions? LOL thats rich. You do realize Republicans are going to outspend everyone again right. Citizens United is the worst decision the Supreme Court has made in at least 50-60years.
 
xpiher said:
Beat the unions? LOL thats rich. You do realize Republicans are going to outspend everyone again right. Citizens United is the worst decision the Supreme Court has made in at least 50-60years.
Click to expand...

:) it's rather entertaining that you would link those two things - given that the Citizens United case extended the exact same rights and privileges to unions as it did to corporations (both had previously been limited in their speech), and that unions are the biggest spenders in our elections.

OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting keeps track of donations, you may be interested in seeing who the big donors are for the last 10 years.

Camlon said:
I don't think the reason Obama failed was because he had no political eperience. He failed because he ran a platform on Hope and Change, when he actually wanted left-wing politics. He is also quite arrogant and you can see that he is pretending.
Click to expand...

I agree the president is a bit narcissistic. However, you can't use that to discount his lack of experience. The man really does appear to have thought that things would work in reality they way they do in his speeches - he made a whole series of promises that any experienced executive would have known were beyond his ability to ensure (Gitmo is perhaps the classic but in no way the only example). His response to every crises - without fail - has been to appoint a commission of experts / wait a long time / give a speech. He turned over comprehensive reform and spending efforts to Congress, apparently either unaware or uncaring that the political incentives of congresscritters are to take comprehensive measures and turn them into giant boondoggles; which left him defending a health care program that was in serious ways a contradiction of what he had campaigned on and a stimulus program that was nothing but a grab-bag of Democratic Pork Goodies. As much heat as Obama has taken, he was basically co-opted for some time by Pelosi and Reid, who effectively ran Democrat domestic policy. Cain is right to point out that many experienced politicians have been part of the problem. But the response to that is not inexperienced politicians - because the experienced ones who are part of the problem know the system, know the rules, and will run circles around you.

Republicans need a good speaker to win the presidental race and to beat Obama. Herman Cain is a good speaker. Mitt Romney is not a good speaker and he is RINO. He just changed his positions to get more votes. He will be an embarrasment for the republican party, because he will make the GOP look weak. Herman Cain, even if he lose will give Obama a tough match.
Click to expand...

Cain would be very entertaining to watch - he was a very effective voice against Clinton's "Hillarycare" and he has only sharpened his edge since then. And I agree that Romney is more likely to lose than people give him credit for - the base simply will not turn out for him, as they didn't for McCain. The one position he's willing to stick to (the individual mandate) is the worst one of all the bunch to choose; and he will look Rino-ish and weak. If Romney is the candidate, despite the importance I place on defeating Obama, I will seriously consider voting for a third party (of which I am sure there will be one).
 
cpwill said:
:) it's rather entertaining that you would link those two things - given that the Citizens United case extended the exact same rights and privileges to unions as it did to corporations (both had previously been limited in their speech), and that unions are the biggest spenders in our elections.

OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting keeps track of donations, you may be interested in seeing who the big donors are for the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

Since Citizens United, the biggest spenders have been Billionaires and mega corporations who have specifically used their money power to weaken unions in order to have an even bigger advantage in the 2012 election. If Unions were doing the same thing that these people are I would be calling them out on it as well, but they are being dwarfed. Citizen United isn't necessarily a bad decision, the problem is with the fact that the Supreme Court didn't force congress to write a full disclosure law, even though thats exactly what the Supreme Court wanted.

Personally, I think all elections, except the primaries, should be publicly funded in one way or another in order to remove the mandatory pandering/political favors that is needed to get money. Its not like keeping some of it in the open is preventing back room deals.
 
I don't believe in public financing for two reasons. The first one is that people should have the freedom to spend how ever much they want on what they want. The second is taxpayers shouldn't have to help pay for campaigns of candidates they may not support.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
I don't believe in public financing for two reasons. The first one is that people should have the freedom to spend how ever much they want on what they want. The second is taxpayers shouldn't have to help pay for campaigns of candidates they may not support.
Click to expand...

But you are fine with those with money having more of a voice than those without money? And who said it has to be tax payer funded? It could be a simply law which requires major networks to change air time at cost.
 
xpiher said:
But you are fine with those with money having more of a voice than those without money? And who said it has to be tax payer funded? It could be a simply law which requires major networks to change air time at cost.
Click to expand...

Its their money, I don't believe they should be restricted from using it.

Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney were pretty much equal last time but Huck got less than 20 million and Romney got over 100 million.
 
xpiher said:
Since Citizens United, the biggest spenders have been Billionaires and mega corporations...If Unions were doing the same thing that these people are I would be calling them out on it as well, but they are being dwarfed.
Click to expand...

:) You evidently haven't been paying attention. Glad I am able to help here.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.

"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom