Hamler Bulldogs;938436 wrote:If Ron Paul was about 15 years younger.i'd vote for him in a heartbeat,he's just to old.

If a requirement is that he runs a marathon, I agree, but the man has the ability to make better decisions than the others. That really doesn't have an age limit.

I do wish he was younger, though, as I can hear the average 18-year-old saying he's old and icky and out of touch with people today, even though he's easily the most rebellious candidate in light of the current system of government.

His appeal as a candidate ends with his positions and willingness to take on any member of any party over an issue he feels strongly about.

As such, anyone swayed by a "good-looking" or charismatic candidate will write him off.

WebFire;938467 wrote:I'll vote anyway. Reagan was 70 his first year in office.

Paul will be one year younger in his first term than Reagan was in his last year in office. I'm okay with that, but there does seem to be a different social stigma for 77 than there is for 70.

BGFalcons82;938478 wrote:He will be 77 by his first year and 81 by the end of his term. I guess if you think JoePa is da bomb, vote for Ron!

Watched about half the debate and several of Ron's comments. He speaks almost incoherently. He's very hard to follow and I think I'm pretty politically astute. He obviously is trying to cram 5 minutes of words into 60 seconds and he comes off poorly...IMO.

Yeah, I think the problem is that he's not used to speaking in sound bites that are to be understood by the lowest common denominator of society. The man seems to want to be so crystal clear about his view that he tends to word vomit.

But careful about weighting articulate speech to heavily, as id wager that's largely how the current shlub won office.

WebFire;938485 wrote:You are not entirely incorrect. But on the other hand, the others come across as used car saleman puppets. Paul speaks it how he sees and feels it. Notice he was the only one taking notes during the damn thing? The others have canned responses to everything, even if it's not the question asked to them.

Voting for the one that sounds good got us Obama.

Probably a habit from medical school.

In all seriousness, some of the responses from some of the candidates are damn-near parodial. How Ricky P. is ever taken seriously is beyond me.

jhay78;938606 wrote:Romney just feels and sounds like the slimiest politician of all those on the stage. Comes across as arrogant and like another moderator on the stage. Attacking Rick Perry's honest and truthful claims about the need to reform SS; continuously harping on the Rick Perry/pastor/saying Mormonism is a cult thingy, when he should've let that die a long time ago.

I just think his track record bears him to be one of the more economically burdensome candidates on the platform. I think that if Romney wins the GOP nod, we'll have two competing candidates that are as ideologically similar as we could possibly have from the current crop.

Romney: As Little Change As Possible

Ron Paul's belief we should just pull all of our troops out of every foreign country and his criticisms of the US after 9/11 hurt in the eyes of many people who would otherwise vote for him. I think these issues weight more heavy than his age.

I don't love Romney, but he is better than what we currently have as president. To quote Rick Pitino when he coached at Boston "Ronald Reagan is not walking through that door". The sooner everyone unites and takes Obama the better off the country will be.

Little Danny;938899 wrote:Ron Paul's belief we should just pull all of our troops out of every foreign country and his criticisms of the US after 9/11 hurt in the eyes of many people who would otherwise vote for him. I think these issues weight more heavy than his age.

I don't love Romney, but he is better than what we currently have as president. To quote Rick Pitino when he coached at Boston "Ronald Reagan is not walking through that door". The sooner everyone unites and takes Obama the better off the country will be.

As far as his view on bringing the troops home, that might be the case in the primaries, where the idea of mass military occupation is its most popular, you might be right. However, that same view seems to be immensely popular among independents.

His sentiments on the US in regard to terrorism are at least rooted, and again, they seem to be far more commonly shared among those who don't pledge their allegiance to one of the two big parties.

Honestly, I don't think the GOP has another candidate that will garner a larger part of the independent and third-party vote, which is why I can't see a better candidate from the GOP side. Problem is, the GOP side still has a fair share of people who'd rather have GWB, Jr. (Perry) or arguably the most liberal Republican up there (Romney) as President instead, and they somehow think those guys can get enough support from the swing voters.

Rick Perry is a bafoon. How he made it this far in politics amazes me. Ive never seen anyone as robotic and uncomfortable in his own skin. He would be my last choice. not to mention I dont think he has had an original idea this whole campaign..

BGFalcons82;938640 wrote:Did you notice Anderson Cooper not wanting to get into the state of the economy, jobs, unemployment, spending, etc. and focus on tertiary issues like what a pastor said, immigration, foreign policy, Iran, etc.?

What network employs him, again?

Yeah I noticed that. Seems like the debates so far have been more instrumental in inciting catfights than in really digging deep in policy.

I liked Perry at the beginning, but he has not impressed me in the debates. Definitely looks and sounds uncomfortable, although I think he (and any of the other candidates) would run circles around Obama in a debate.

What about Perry's performance makes you believe he'd run circles around Obama in a debate?

pmoney25;938964 wrote:Rick Perry is a bafoon. How he made it this far in politics amazes me. Ive never seen anyone as robotic and uncomfortable in his own skin. He would be my last choice. not to mention I dont think he has had an original idea this whole campaign..

Reps.

jhay78;939034 wrote:Yeah I noticed that. Seems like the debates so far have been more instrumental in inciting catfights than in really digging deep in policy.

I liked Perry at the beginning, but he has not impressed me in the debates. Definitely looks and sounds uncomfortable, although I think he (and any of the other candidates) would run circles around Obama in a debate.

Honestly, I disagree, as the president can pontificate with the best of them.

There are only a couple that I'd say sound educated enough to be able to argue successfully with the president.

Little Danny;938899 wrote:Ron Paul's belief we should just pull all of our troops out of every foreign country and his criticisms of the US after 9/11 hurt in the eyes of many people who would otherwise vote for him. I think these issues weight more heavy than his age.

I don't love Romney, but he is better than what we currently have as president. To quote Rick Pitino when he coached at Boston "Ronald Reagan is not walking through that door". The sooner everyone unites and takes Obama the better off the country will be.

I disagree. More Americans agree with him on this than not agree. People are sick and tired of us gallavanting around the globe, spending trillions, losing thousands of our kids, and showing absolutely nothing in the way of progress.

Moreover, the perceived notion that this arrogance and global hubris somehow reduces the threat of terrorism is a ruse....and those that research the topic know this.

If conservatives are really concerned about the national debt...and I mean really concerned...not just lip service concerned, then only Paul should be considered to get your vote.

Fast forward....imagine a president vetoing every single unnecessary spending bill. Every single one. Now, who ya gonna vote for? I know that the majority of military families will be voting for Paul. They sent him more campaign dollars than all of the other candidates combined in 08.

Footwedge;939061 wrote:I disagree. More Americans agree with him on this than not agree. People are sick and tired of us gallavanting around the globe, spending trillions, losing thousands of our kids, and showing absolutely nothing in the way of progress.
[SUB][/SUB]
Moreover, the perceived notion that this arrogance and global hubris somehow reduces the threat of terrorism is a ruse....and those that research the topic know this.

If conservatives are really concerned about the national debt...and I mean really concerned...not just lip service concerned, then only Paul should be considered to get your vote.

Fast forward....imagine a president vetoing every single unnecessary spending bill. Every single one. Now, who ya gonna vote for? I know that the majority of military families will be voting for Paul. They sent him more campaign dollars than all of the other candidates combined in 08.

This. Which candidate has risked popular GOP vote because of the fact that he has no sacred cow whose funding he's not afraid to cut if it's found to be wasteful (social or military)?

Whether it's trillions we spend on foreign occupation or on socialized medical care, those trillions are equally as burdensome on the tax payer.

O-Trap;938923 wrote:... and they somehow think those guys can get enough support from the swing voters.

So the swing voters will support more of Obama then?

believer;939185 wrote:So the swing voters will support more of Obama then?

If it's between Obama and someone like Perry for instance. Yes I'd vote Obama.

Footwedge;939061 wrote:I disagree. More Americans agree with him on this than not agree. People are sick and tired of us gallavanting around the globe, spending trillions, losing thousands of our kids, and showing absolutely nothing in the way of progress.

Moreover, the perceived notion that this arrogance and global hubris somehow reduces the threat of terrorism is a ruse....and those that research the topic know this.

If conservatives are really concerned about the national debt...and I mean really concerned...not just lip service concerned, then only Paul should be considered to get your vote.

Fast forward....imagine a president vetoing every single unnecessary spending bill. Every single one. Now, who ya gonna vote for? I know that the majority of military families will be voting for Paul. They sent him more campaign dollars than all of the other candidates combined in 08.

I'm inclined to agree for the most part...it's time to at least consider reducing our worldwide military presence.

I Wear Pants;939230 wrote:http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/how-herman-cains-9-9-9-plan-would-change-your-taxes/246941/

Insane.

Be careful before humping some of these articles. The price you pay for a good has hidden taxes and tax related costs already in it. The difference is the consumer is blinded to them. Not just taxes themselves but the overhead costs of complying with the onerous tax code. Slap them on the end of a receipt and 9% gets them up in arms. Transparency will keep taxes naturally low.

If we were to not change the tax rate or code at all. If we were add the employers 7.625% FICA match into the checks of working Americans. Eliminate payroll deductions and let the individual get his cash in his hands then pay federal taxes quarterly or monthly and see what happens. Though lower and middle income Americans would have no change in federal tax liability you would see a cry in the land not heard since the founding. Its all smoke and mirrors. When taxation becomes transparent to the taxpayer, the shit hits the fan. But lets just keep those taxes in a nice happy package and all will be well.

A simple tax code without all the loopholes, overhead administrative costs, etc.. Minus the hidden taxes/tax related costs. It would lower the actual price of a good sold. I doubt many are factoring this in to their calculations. Also families $40,000-$50,000 are going to pay $4,000 more in federal taxes? Based on what assumptions? What kind of deductions and credits are they receiving under the current tax code? Just throwing shit out their is not fact.

The two main issues are spending and the tax code. If I could merge Ron Paul and Herman Cain we might have something really good. Ron Paul is right about spending. Cain is right the federal tax code needs to be thrown to the curb. Not modified and tweaked which makes it even more complex. If the founders were subject to such an onerous tax code they would have picked up their guns a long time ago. The federal tax code makes the intolerable acts look like a stroll through the daisies.

I would be fine with throwing the code to the curb. I'm just not convinced that 9-9-9 and other plans I've seen are the solutions that we should put in place.

believer;939185 wrote:So the swing voters will support more of Obama then?

You're responding to an unlikable candidate in the typical independent's eye (Obama) with another unlikable candidate in the typical independent's eye (Perry or Romney). One of the biggest criticisms (among indies) of Obama is that he said he'd pull troops out and quit "nation building" and "war mongering" ... all that stuff Bush was vilified for doing. He hasn't. Putting a candidate up against him that not only supports us entering the way we did, but believes we still need to be there (essentially agreeing with Obama's actions) isn't going to rally the indies.

At the very least, you roll the dice with a party-line Republican like Perry or Cain. I'd say you even start behind the 8-ball with Romney, as he's quite easily the most left-leaning candidate in these debates (going off his history).

But if you put a candidate up there who:
- has decades of reputation for an "the-federal-government-needs-to-leave-you-alone-as-much-as-possible" platform,
- believes in getting as many troops home safely,
- believes in as low taxes as possible,
- believes in less regulation and interference in the private sector ... even less than most of the current Republican crop,
- has never voted to raise the pay of Congress at the expense of the public,
- has demonstrated for decades that he doesn't allow party affiliation to keep him from standing up to someone, and
- hasn't really had any skeletons show up in his closet despite being in politics for decades (unless you count the fact that he had racists who supported him ... as if many candidates on both sides haven't in recent history)

The guy embodies traditional family values in his daily life. He obviously holds the Bible to be very important in his daily life (though he did screw up a reference in his speech at the Value Voters event). He has a socially conservative voting record at the state and local levels (which he maintains is the level for such issues).

That's almost a slam dunk for indies. He's not a slime ball (back to the scandal thing). He doesn't believe in intrusive Federal government. He believes that we should bring the troops home. His voting record reflects these platforms, as do his appeals to Congress, so not only are these his positions today, but they've consistently been his positions for years, which lends to the notion that he's not peddling the positions in some plan to garner votes.

The vast majority of independents and third party candidates would pick him in a heartbeat over the incumbent.

If the Republicans are wanting to play for the easiest win, they'd pick a candidate that (a) Republicans will vote for, and (b) will win the greatest portion of the third party and independent voters. Paul fits that bill better than any other candidate.

I Wear Pants;939197 wrote:If it's between Obama and someone like Perry for instance. Yes I'd vote Obama.

I would vote either third party or Ditka at that point.

There was an article in the WSJ today claiming the math works, based on 9% (no deductions or loopholes) on the various tax bases. The math does work, but I question where they get their tax rates when the average effective corp tax rate is like 22% or something, and the rich pay something north of the 15% capital gains tax - effective meaning after all credits, deductions and loopholes. So I don't see how the 9% retail tax makes up for that.

Now, the "math" is on par with recent receipts, but still a bit low vs. historically low collections (16%, 2-3% below norms) for a variety of reasons. Not to mention the $1.4T deficit...

Arthur Laffer article in the WSJ:
" Thus, Mr. Cain's 9-9-9 tax base for his business tax is $9.5 trillion, for his income tax $7.7 trillion, and for his sales tax $8.3 trillion. And there you have it! Three federal taxes at 9% that would raise roughly $2.3 trillion"

O-Trap, I'd say "traditional family values" isn't really that important among independent voters like myself. However it definitely helps him with the Republican base. I think Paul beats Obama in an election.

I Wear Pants;939374 wrote:O-Trap, I'd say "traditional family values" isn't really that important among independent voters like myself. However it definitely helps him with the Republican base. I think Paul beats Obama in an election.

It's important to remember that independents are often "independent" for more than one reason, and there may very well be some who are simply more comfortable with a man who has been married to the same woman for 50 years. I don't care about that as much, either, but my point was that he will appeal to most.

I also think Paul beats Obama in a general election. He garners the same portion of the Republican vote as any other candidate, PLUS he appeals to a much wider demographic of independents and third party voters. I'm not sure how you compete with that.

I Wear Pants;939374 wrote:O-Trap, I'd say "traditional family values" isn't really that important among independent voters like myself.

Gay couples should love Cain's 9-9-9 plan. They pay the same tax rate as a married heterosexual couple.

majorspark;939396 wrote:Gay couples should love Cain's 9-9-9 plan. They pay the same tax rate as a married heterosexual couple.

I'm sure they should also love his views on marriage and likely custody rights, hospital visitation rights, etc.

I Wear Pants;939409 wrote:I'm sure they should also love his views on marriage and likely custody rights, hospital visitation rights, etc.

What federal legislation is Cain proposing to prevent any of this?

majorspark;939410 wrote:What federal legislation is Cain proposing to prevent any of this?

Doesn't have to propose it, the fact that he would/wouldn't support those measures is enough that gays won't vote for him. Why would they?

majorspark;939410 wrote:What federal legislation is Cain proposing to prevent any of this?

Would he have to propose legislation? Doesn't seem like it would change much except the permanence of the current state of affairs.

O-Trap;939418 wrote:Would he have to propose legislation? Doesn't seem like it would change much except the permanence of the current state of affairs.

Yes he would. These are state issues. That is the current state of affairs. Ron Paul believes the feds should not define marriage or meddle in these issues either. Paul is content to leave the feds out Cain has shown no indication he believes differently.

majorspark;939425 wrote:Yes he would. These are state issues. That is the current state of affairs. Ron Paul believes the feds should not define marriage or meddle in these issues either. Paul is content to leave the feds out Cain has shown no indication he believes differently.

Fair enough.