Herman Cain leads by 20 points!

Kay said:
Doing missionary work makes you a religious kook now?

I have a friend who's a Mormon. He spent the last two years in Switzerland. They all do it. I have another friend, who's not a Mormon, but spent this summer in Japan trying to convert people to whatever Christian faith he believes. They're devoted to their faith, but there's a difference between that, and being a religious nutjob. See: Bachmann, Michelle.

By your standards, it's like saying a guy who goes to church every week is a religious kook.
Click to expand...

No, you have it wrong. What I described are not my standards, but standards often seen and displayed on this forum, which has a large population of atheists, and an even larger population of liberals. What I described is the typical smear BASED ON RELIGION that is seen applied to anyone who is perceived as being of an opposing political persuasion.

Further, what I've noted is the uniqueness of the absence of this smear and this method with respect to Romney. What you've tried to rationalize (in the above bolded section of your post) is essentially saying "My nutjobs are okay, your nutjobs are total wackos".

Thus substantiating my earlier assertion:

"Romney gets a free pass".

My standards are quite different than these narrow minded, prejudicial and bigoted ones.

Just to clarify.
 
Last edited:
This seams truly bizarre to me, but my usual source now shows Gingrich in the lead in its average of various polls:

Gingrich 23.2
Romney 21.0
Cain 18.2
Perry 7.7
Paul 7.5
Bachmann 4.8
Huntsman 2.2
Santorum 2.0
undecided (by implication) 14.2

Ofcourse, this will all probably change after the New Hampshire primary.
 
TimCallahan said:
I don't have a dog in this fight. So what is your preference? Also, which combination do you feel has the greatest voting appeal?
Click to expand...

Romney - the politician
Gingrich - the thinker
Cain - the motivator
Perry - the manager

I first saw Gingrich closeup doing a talk two years ago. The guy floored me. I didn't think that he could get his attitude and mindset across in the public arena, but he does seem to be doing that, judging from the recent debate performance.

All of the main players - Gingrich, Cain, Romney and Perry - have seriously good ideas and plans.

What personally I think is not typical. I'm in no position to guess at what the average voter would do. I'm way over in the small government, cut out entire agencies, shrink others by 35-85% rodeo. Many more people have decided to check this rodeo out in the last two years. Others remain clueless as to why it's the necessary path.

All of these four, and many others, could help put this country back on track. You've mentioned some structural problems we have with a wage imbalance causing jobs moving offshore. And that's not going away.

One caution. Argentina had similar economic problems, they proceeded to vote one party in, kick them out, vote the other in and so forth. Didn't work out. Brazil had similar economic problems, they solved it and are now one of the big four - "BRIC".

Of these four men, Gringrich is the one who could immediately state the differences in government policy and the right and wrong decisions that led to these different outcomes between Brazil and Argentina. From that, he'd comment on what we should do moving forward.

But any one of the four could do the same, if he had first rate advisers.
 
mhaze said:
Of these four men, Gringrich is the one who could immediately state the differences in government policy and the right and wrong decisions that led to these different outcomes between Brazil and Argentina. From that, he'd comment on what we should do moving forward.
Click to expand...
Forward straight off the cliff. The moron thinks that cuting taxes for the top of the food chain and taking things away from the bottom stimulates the ecconomy.

What is the moron smoking?
 
mhaze said:
what I've noted is the uniqueness of the absence of this smear and this method with respect to Romney.

<snip>
my earlier assertion:

"Romney gets a free pass".
Click to expand...

So you're equating the absence of a smear campaign as a free pass? That's just abuse of language. The two things are not equivalent. Not smearing a candidate is something we would want and expect. Giving a candidate a free pass on something is not.

And for the record, some of what you call "smear" on the issue of religion is certainly substantiated and warranted (and not properly "smear"). Perry, for example, was roundly criticized for calling for prayer to end the drought while cutting the budget on firefighters. I would say a "free pass" would be ignoring that sort of thing. Since Romney also has a public record as a state governor, do you have any evidence that he did anything like that which was subsequently ignored?
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
There was NO "ability to look beyond party first and foremost" capability in those true blue souls who catapulted into office an empty suit, based on a fine marketing campaign, in 2008.
Click to expand...


Which was different from 2004 how, exactly? Or different from 2000? Or 1996? Or 1992? Or 1988? Or 1984? Or 1980? Or pretty much any other presidential election campaign in the last half-century?


mhaze said:
He's [Romney] not only getting a free pass from the media, he's getting a free pass on JREF. That's rather astonishing.
Click to expand...


What is one to make of this thread then?
 
The mud we fling at the GOP candidates is mostly what they tracked in across the carpet. Romney just hasn't left as much as the ranting and halucinating Perry or Bachmann or the horndogs Newt or Cain.

We still throw a lump or two of vulture capitalist at Romeny for his dispicable business model.

The only one getting a "free pass" is Huntsman, who is actually the only one of the lot who really has a clue how to make government work, but who still hasn't really figured out the basic flaw in his own reasoning.
 
leftysergeant said:
The mud we fling at the GOP candidates is mostly what they tracked in across the carpet. Romney just hasn't left as much as the ranting and halucinating Perry or Bachmann or the horndogs Newt or Cain.
Click to expand...

Romney is severely outclassed in the ranting and raving department.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Which was different from 2004 how, exactly? Or different from 2000? Or 1996? Or 1992? Or 1988? Or 1984? Or 1980? Or pretty much any other presidential election campaign.....
Click to expand...
How is it different? Obama-that-ran was a manufactured media persona. You elected "him", then you found out what you really got.

I'm not sure that's occurred before. Not with anyone since and including Kennedy.
 
http://www.mediaite.com/online/meet-ginger-white-the-latest-women-to-allege-a-relationship-with-herman-cain/

MyFoxAtlanta has also published the following statement from Cain’s lawyer Lin Wood:
....
Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults – a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public’s right to know and the media’s right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one’s bedroom door.
Mr. Cain has alerted his wife to this new accusation and discussed it with her. He has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media and he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media.”

Wow ??
 
No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life.
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, they're a Democrat.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Okay, now this one's got to be provable or refutable. If they had at it for 13 years, it cannot come down to he said/she said. There will be evidence or not. If none is forthcoming, I'm going to start to side with the witch hunt brigade.
Click to expand...

My spidey-sense says it's true. :)

The lawyer is already playing CYA. Note that he (the lawyer) doesn't refute it, but rather says it's no one's business.
 
Last edited:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/cain_preemptively_denies_allegations_asV8yltlCe5xRgFslzuD7K

During the CNN interview, Cain denied having an affair but said he could not respond in more detail until he heard the charges.

"I have no idea what she's going to have to show proof," he said.
Click to expand...

Seems like an odd thing to say, doesn't it? If you didn't have an affair with her, then why would you worry about what sort of proof she has? If there was no affair, there would be no proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom