I Wear Pants;967464 wrote:"OMG someone said something bad about a Republican! Better post a bad video of Obama!!!"

You guys are exactly the same as the blame Bush people.

majorspark;967898 wrote:Cain back on the campaign trail. I love it.

BGFalcons82;967787 wrote:http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47438

Huh, this Bialek accuser lived in the same building as Obama's top hatchet man, David Axelrod.
Huh, Herman Cain spent little to no time in Chicago and never lived there, but all his accusers come from there.
Huh, Herman Cain was only a sexual herasser for 3 years while head of the National Restaurant Association.
Huh, Axelrod has a history of getting records unsealed so he can fabricate stories.
Huh, this whole story follows an Axelrod/Obama playbook.

I'll bet no one on here had any idea. We surely can count on the press to report the whole truth, can't we?

O-Trap;968426 wrote:You're starting to sound like a "crazy conspiracy theorist," much like the Ronulans are accused of being when they mention the coverage inequality.

BGFalcons82;968441 wrote:Not my article. It was written by Coulter. I was merely paraphrasing.

My main point is that these facts don't seem to make it to the average American. For those that like to hear all sides of a story, this is very frustrating. When the dozens of women came out with stories of Clinton's indiscretions prior to the '92 election, the press couldn't wait to dig into the accuser's trash, get marital records, etc. Now, since their boy is in office, they refuse to do their jobs as journalists.

Why can't they dig for the truth no matter whom is in charge?

sleeper;967625 wrote:Obama isn't a great speaker. I don't know why people think that he is, but he's had several gaffes that went unnoticed by a majority of the media, because the masses were already hoodwinked to believe Obama is a great speaker. When people tell me that he is, I ask why, and they never can give a reason.

BGFalcons82;968441 wrote: Why can't they dig for the truth no matter whom is in charge?

gut;968741 wrote:Vegas mentality....people love to double-down on a loser.

At least some on the left can express disappointment with Obama. However, it does beg the question on just how bad of a POTUS they were hoping for.:laugh:

O-Trap;968426 wrote:You're starting to sound like a "crazy conspiracy theorist," much like the Ronulans are accused of being when they mention the coverage inequality.

WebFire;972246 wrote:You mean like the whole 90 seconds he got in the first hour the other night?

O-Trap;972284 wrote:Did you miss that I was being cheeky? I'm a "Ronulan" myself, and there is a noticeable difference with how he's treated.

However, I don't think it's exclusively an establishment issue (though I think that plays a part). I think some of it is still the fact that the majority of people (both within our nation and even globally) prefer a candidate who speaks in sound bytes and who doesn't talk about the complexities of issues, since so many don't seem to have the attention span to listen to anything addressing the complexities of the problems we face.

I'd contend that it's the same reason so many people watch anything to do with the Kardashians and so few watch C-SPAN.

O-Trap;972308 wrote:Actually, I think this started long before the current president, but I do think it's part of why a person with good charisma is more electable than a person who stands on platforms with solid purpose and rationale.

O-Trap;972308 wrote:Actually, I think this started long before the current president, but I do think it's part of why a person with good charisma is more electable than a person who stands on platforms with solid purpose and rationale.

O-Trap;972414 wrote:Actually, while you hear that message frequently from his supporters, he himself doesn't even bring that up much. When he speaks, he doesn't talk about much other than the issues.

The whole Cain fiasco is a perfect example. When approached by something ancillary to the issues (about which it could be said regarding his coverage), Paul dismissed the relevance of any scandal that might paint Cain in a negative light because it wasn't relevant to the issues.

I'll be the first to say that there are some whiny Paul supporters (not that their appeal is completely unfounded), but one ought not mistake Paul's priorities regarding his campaign with his supporters' priorities.

And what Newt is good at is speaking in sound bytes. The man is a good politician, particularly with a population whose attention span lasts little longer than a breath mint.

Paul does have his struggles when communicating. He says things as they are, and he tends not to dumb things down. It serves him well in interviews, but it is detrimental to his ability to debate with time limits.

BGFalcons82;972455 wrote:Just think of the possibilities if he could speak more succintly. To me, it's one of the major reasons he doesn't garner more than 10% of the polling. Forget about straw polls - his supporters are more passionate than anyone elses, so they are more likely to pay for the right to vote in them. For those that don't know, straw polls aren't random...people pay a fee to submit a vote.

Right now, I'm leaning towards Newt. He has won every debate so far. I'd also like to see him square off against Barry, whom has been portrayed by the media as the smartest POTUS of all time. The entertainment value would be very high to watch Barry get his ass whooped.

Cain just seems lost when it comes to foreign policy. Perry can't debate worth a lick and his immigration policy is the pits. Romney is Obama-lite. I like Ron Paul, but his age and his near-isolationist views are downers for me. All others need to GTFO, as they have no chance and they're stealing valuable time from those that need more exposure.

fish82;972477 wrote:The field won't thin appreciably until after the first couple of primaries.

BGFalcons82;972455 wrote:Right now, I'm leaning towards Newt. He has won every debate so far. I'd also like to see him square off against Barry, whom has been portrayed by the media as the smartest POTUS of all time. The entertainment value would be very high to watch Barry get his ass whooped.

Cain just seems lost when it comes to foreign policy. Perry can't debate worth a lick and his immigration policy is the pits. Romney is Obama-lite. I like Ron Paul, but his age and his near-isolationist views are downers for me. All others need to GTFO, as they have no chance and they're stealing valuable time from those that need more exposure.

BoatShoes;972636 wrote:Of course your leaning towards Newt. They guy Romney and Obama got the individual mandate from! If either He or Romney gets the nomination, their sole big government talking point will be destroyed by Obama's team pointing out this simple, verifiable fact. Of course you're holding Ron Paul's foreign policy against him when the Tea Party has said that this presidential race is about domestic issues.

I am completely opposed to the Obamacare mandate on individuals. I fought it for two and half years at the Center for Health Transformation. You can see all the things we did to stop it at HealthTransformation.net. I am for the repeal of Obamacare and I am against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone because it is fundamentally wrong and I believe unconstitutional.

BoatShoes;972636 wrote:If you are serious about decreasing the size of government in a very serious way, the only answer is Ron Paul. Although all of these candidates policy proposals will make life worse for most Americans, Ron Paul scares me the most as he is true believer and has not waivered in his truth faith in the Austrian school since the Nixon shock. Methinks if it would make me unhappy it ought to make you want to support him.

bigdaddy2003;972775 wrote:I'm getting tired of hearing people say Newt isn't electable because he has "baggage."