# The Republican Primary Debates 2012, Who's you favorite?



## HelpCube (Sep 29, 2011)

Title. Who do support so far from what we've seen in the debates? 

Personally, I've loved Herman Cain from the start. His "common sense solutions" actually make sense, and he doesn't talk a ton of mumbo jumbo. So far in the debates, I've only seen two people who actually have been providing solutions to things. Those two people are Ron Paul and Herman Cain. Personally, I see Ron Paul as going a little to far with things, he wants the government to be a little too small. However, Herman Cain seems really good. His 9-9-9 tax plan sounds really nice and simple, and his social security plan, the chilean model, makes lots of sense. Thoughts?


----------



## ianography (Sep 29, 2011)

Michelle Bachmann because she's _soooooo_ smart.

She's crazy and dangerous, bro


----------



## Kian (Sep 29, 2011)

I voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 primary and will be doing the same in the 2012 primary. I don't watch debates because it's all political posturing and useless banter. The history of a candidate is far more important and reliable than anything they have to say in a 30 second soundbite.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 29, 2011)

I hate that I can't do much for the primaries. (Libertarian.)
Saying that, I'd have to go for Ron Paul as well if I had the option.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 29, 2011)

[sarcasm] I would vote for Ron Paul because I want a president who doesn't believe in evolution. [/sarcasm]


----------



## Hershey (Sep 29, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> I would vote for Ron Paul because I want a president who doesn't believe in evolution.


 
Wait you are a creationist? Not sure if serious or...


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 29, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Wait you are a creationist? Not sure if serious or...



Please watch the documentary:
_Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. _


On topic:
"Republican" and "favorite" in the same sentence? Does not compute.


----------



## aronpm (Sep 29, 2011)

Obama


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 29, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Wait you are a creationist? Not sure if serious or...


 
I really should add sarcasm tags for people like you.


----------



## Kian (Sep 29, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> [sarcasm] I would vote for Ron Paul because I want a president who doesn't believe in evolution. [/sarcasm]


 
While his position on evolution is stupid, it's irrelevant. He's not even in favor of public education and certainly isn't interested in dictating the curriculum of schools.


----------



## Muesli (Sep 29, 2011)

I, speaking as a foreigner, am absolutely terrified that these empty-headed, corrupt, irrational and fundamentalist bigots are even considered for the most powerful office on the planet.

I don't want any of these people to have their finger on the big red button.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 29, 2011)

Kian said:


> While his position on evolution is stupid, it's irrelevant.


 
I know it really doesn't matter much, I just find it funny that anyone living in the 21st century can disagree with the theory of evolution.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 29, 2011)

To me, Ron Paul's views on immigration are disgusting.


----------



## ianography (Sep 29, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> To me, Ron Paul's views on immigration are disgusting.


 
Not to mention that he's so obviously racist. 

Honestly, I really like Jon Huntsman. He calls people out on their crap.


----------



## Kian (Sep 29, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> To me, Ron Paul's views on immigration are disgusting.


 
Explain your obviously misguided disgust.



ianography said:


> Not to mention that he's so obviously racist.



Wow. That's ridiculous and wildly unfounded.



Muesli said:


> I, speaking as a foreigner, am absolutely terrified that these empty-headed, corrupt, irrational and fundamentalist bigots are even considered for the most powerful office on the planet.
> 
> I don't want any of these people to have their finger on the big red button.



Wow again. Way to completely misrepresent everyone. These sort of broad sweeping denouncements are false and not helpful. 

To everyone: I guess I'm done here, because there's no room on this forum for rational, reasoned argument. You are mostly ill-informed and reactionary.


----------



## masteranders1 (Sep 29, 2011)

ianography said:


> Michelle Bachmann because she's _soooooo_ smart.
> 
> She's crazy and dangerous, bro


 
true dat

I don't like any of them, but Rick Perry is just a hypocrite. He says that he wants Texas to be separate from the rest of the US and then runs for president. Confusing.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 29, 2011)

Kian said:


> Explain your obviously misguided disgust.


 Obviously misguided?
I can see you're one of those people who already walk into a conversation/debate with an attitude of "You're obviously wrong, and I'm always right."

So, no thank you. I don't enjoy debates with people who have such a close minded attitude. It's not an enjoyable conversation.


----------



## ianography (Sep 29, 2011)

Kian said:


> Wow. That's ridiculous and wildly unfounded.


 
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/211823/20110911/ron-paul-racism-anti-semitism-republican.htm

You were saying?



ElectricDoodie said:


> Obviously misguided?
> I can see you're one of those people who already walk into a conversation/debate with an attitude of "You're obviously wrong, and I'm always right."
> 
> So, no thank you. I don't enjoy debates with people who have such a close minded attitude. It's not an enjoyable conversation.


 
+5 cool points.


----------



## Muesli (Sep 29, 2011)

Kian said:


> While his position on evolution is stupid, it's irrelevant.


 
No, it's not. This man denys a blatent, demonstrable fact for the sake of his personal beliefs. I defy you to say that a man, who can maintain that level of cognitive dissonance, is fit to lead a country in a world that doesn't care what you believe in.


----------



## drewsopchak (Sep 29, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Wait you are a creationist? Not sure if serious or...


 
Ron Paul knows evolution to be a proven scientific theory/fact. 

Ron Paul, because he's the only statesman, the rest are politicians. He's never flip flopped, and strongly believes in the constitution.

On another note, to call Dr. Paul a racist because he doesn't support everything in the civil rights act of 1964 is like saying someone who doesn't support Stimulus/the jobs bill, wants serfdom, poverty, and high unemployment. Paul disaproves of the federal government telling private businesses what they can and cannot serve and two whom. Title II

Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

Further more, the article has many factual errors like when it states the federal reserve is a government agency. Notice the article lacks citations.
This pathetic attempt at labeling a Jeffersonian statesmen is merely a hit piece. Show some shame, fool.


----------



## cuberkid10 (Sep 29, 2011)

I happen to not like any of them. Yes I'm a democrat. I find that Ron Paul's views on evolution are absurd. Also, most republican people are against gay people, which I will not support.


----------



## Kian (Sep 29, 2011)

ianography said:


> http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/211823/20110911/ron-paul-racism-anti-semitism-republican.htm
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> ...



You are incredibly ill informed. That op-ed (read: not article) completely skews the idea of faux "civil" rights and actual liberty. You have demonstrated that you have no idea what the man stands for by buying into this sensationalism. 

This is why I shouldn't argue with people on this forum about topics like this. It only leads to my frustration when some kid finds a rant on the internet and bases his world view on it. 

@ElectricDoodle- I know he's obviously misguided because what he said was completely absurd. And I enter this discussion knowing that I do, in fact, have a more in-depth understanding of the topic at hand as someone who has worked in politics and has a degree in Political Science. You'll have to excuse me being frustrated when others are less informed and have very, very strong opinions on things they don't understand.

I'm not going to be unhappy if people like other candidates, but I am unhappy when people WILDLY MISREPRESENT people. Let's keep it civil, reasonable, and devoid of ad hominem attacks or false, broad sweeping accusations. Ugh.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 29, 2011)

Kian said:


> @ElectricDoodle- I know* he's* obviously misguided because what he said was completely absurd. And I enter this discussion knowing that I *do* have a more in-depth understanding of the topic at hand as someone who has worked in politics and has a degree in Political Science. You'll have to excuse me being well informed.


 
What are you talking about "he?"
Your comment was towards me, and I responded to you. Who is this "he" you are talking about?


----------



## ianography (Sep 29, 2011)

Kian said:


> You have demonstrated that you have no idea what the man stands for by buying into this sensationalism.


 
Okay, what does he stand for?


----------



## Kian (Sep 29, 2011)

ianography said:


> Okay, what does he stand for?


 
Liberty. As much of it as possible. For everyone.


----------



## Kian (Sep 29, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> What are you talking about "he?"
> Your comment was towards me, and I responded to you. Who is this "he" you are talking about?


 
Ian is "he".


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 29, 2011)

Kian said:


> Ian is "he".


 
So, you ask me a question.
I respond. 
You answer my response by talking about someone else, as if I was talking about that third person?


----------



## ianography (Sep 29, 2011)

@Kian this is why I want to move to Canada.


----------



## Muesli (Sep 29, 2011)

Kian said:


> Wow again. Way to completely misrepresent everyone. These sort of broad sweeping denouncements are false and not helpful.
> 
> To everyone: I guess I'm done here, because there's no room on this forum for rational, reasoned argument. You are mostly ill-informed and reactionary.


 
Empty headed - Bachmann/Palin,
Corrupt - Perry,
Irrational - All of them, although this is my opinion,
Fundamentalist - Take your pick,
Bigots - Those whom are against homosexual rights... which is Perry, Paul, Palin and Bachmann just off the top of my head.

No broad, sweeping statements. No misrepresentation.

Now, how about a nice civil discussion with no strawmen and actual responses to replies to you. Eh?



Kian said:


> Liberty. As much of it as possible. For everyone.



Except for homosexuals and anyone who isn't part of the white upper class.


----------



## Kian (Sep 29, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> So, you ask me a question.
> I respond.
> You answer my response by talking about someone else, as if I was talking about that third person?


 
Am I taking crazy pills? You quoted my response to him and flippantly dismissed me because of my response to Ian, which I explained. I don't see what you fail to comprehend here.


----------



## drewsopchak (Sep 29, 2011)

Muesli said:


> Empty headed - Bachmann/Palin,
> Corrupt - Perry,
> Irrational - All of them, although this is my opinion,
> Fundamentalist - Take your pick,
> ...


 
Ron Paul doesn't believe the constitution authorizes the federal government to tell people who they can marry.


----------



## ianography (Sep 29, 2011)

Muesli said:


> Empty headed - Bachmann/Palin,
> Corrupt - Perry,
> Irrational - All of them, although this is my opinion,
> Fundamentalist - Take your pick,
> ...


 
Exactly how it is. 

I really don't like the majority of the present-day Republican party. Just sayin'.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 29, 2011)

Kian said:


> Am I taking crazy pills? You quoted my response to him and flippantly dismissed me because of my response to Ian, which I explained. I don't see what you fail to comprehend here.


 
You are the one who has failed in comprehension. Here, I'll spell it out for you, and put it in chronological order, since you can't follow your own posts. I_ never_ quoted your response to Ianography. Don't know where you are coming up with that from. The only quotes I took, were ones made to me.




I say this:


ElectricDoodie said:


> To me, Ron Paul's views on immigration are disgusting.


You respond to me with this:


Kian said:


> Explain your obviously misguided disgust.


I respond to you, with this:


ElectricDoodie said:


> Obviously misguided?
> I can see you're one of those people who already walk into a conversation/debate with an attitude of "You're obviously wrong, and I'm always right."
> 
> So, no thank you. I don't enjoy debates with people who have such a close minded attitude. It's not an enjoyable conversation.


 You now start talking about a "he," who is Ianography, as if he has anything to do with the conversation between the 2 of us.


Kian said:


> @ElectricDoodle- I know *he's* obviously misguided because what he said was completely absurd. And I enter this discussion knowing that I do, in fact, have a more in-depth understanding of the topic at hand as someone who has worked in politics and has a degree in Political Science. You'll have to excuse me being frustrated when others are less informed and have very, very strong opinions on things they don't understand.


----------



## Kian (Sep 29, 2011)

Muesli said:


> Empty headed - Bachmann/Palin,
> Corrupt - Perry,
> Irrational - All of them, although this is my opinion,
> Fundamentalist - Take your pick,
> ...



I called them broad because, if you look at your statement again, you can see that your writing implies that they are all every one of those things. At best it's a bad representation of what you meant to say. At worst it's fundamentally wrong.

You think Dr. Paul is against homosexual rights? That's false.


----------



## Muesli (Sep 29, 2011)

Kian said:


> You think Dr. Paul is against homosexual rights? That's false.


 
My mistake. But the rest of my post is still correct. 

Also, does this imply that all the other candidates I listed are against homosexual rights?


----------



## SlapShot (Sep 29, 2011)

Looks like the socialists are out tonight.

I like Herman Cain.


----------



## Kian (Sep 29, 2011)

Muesli said:


> My mistake. But the rest of my post is still correct.


 
Most of your post is debatable. That was the only part which was factually incorrect.

Anyway, I have no interest in defending any other candidates, but Dr. Paul is a principled, consistent defender of the American Constitution and its strict limits on federal authority. If someone doesn't like that, fine. But that's who he is and I don't appreciate people calling him a "racist" or a "bigot" when his campaign is focused on the idea of reducing the federal government and entrusting the people.


----------



## Zarxrax (Sep 29, 2011)

Almost everyone is so misguided when it comes to politics.
Who cares what someone's stance is on abortion? Who cares if someone believes in evolution? Gay rights? Get real. These are all just divisive issues that are put forth to make everyone argue and hate each other.

The real issue here is which candidates are going to sell us to the highest bidder? We are nothing more than slaves to the establishment, but everyone keeps playing their games. People are going hungry, being kicked out of their homes, struggling to find jobs, being put in jail for victimless crimes, and just trying to LIVE. And the fat cats in washington are living the good life, making the back room deals, padding the wallets of the corporations and CEOs, jetting across the country to high class resorts. How many of your representatives actually go to work on a regular basis? Its all just a joke to them.


----------



## HelpCube (Sep 29, 2011)

Herman Cain is seriously underestimated here. Also, i've noticed so far in this thread pretty much no facts or solutions have been stated, just like most of the debates. Once again, the exceptions are Ron Paul and Herman Cain. If I was 18, I would vote for either of these 2 if they were nominated, I would certaintly prefer Cain though. For example, the 999 tax plan is the greatest plan ever invented. Seriously, everybody pays the same percentage of their pay. If "All people are created equal" (declaration of independence) then why do some have to pay a higher tax rate than others?


----------



## Muesli (Sep 29, 2011)

Kian said:


> Most of your post is debatable. That was the only part which was factually incorrect.


 
Then lets debate. Facts first!

Perry's Corruption
Palin's Derpyness (I realise the clip is 3 years old and cliche, but it's the same woman and she doesn't tend to give interviews anymore [for obvious reasons])
Bachmann's Bigotry (and derpyness).

Now. You've got the choice between a bigot, a moron and a moneygrabber. Ron paul seems to be the only sensible option until you see his stance on evolution, at which point he loses all credibility from me.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 29, 2011)

HelpCube said:


> If "All people are created equal" (declaration of independence) then why do some have to pay a higher tax rate than others?


 
It says "all men are created equal," not "all men get paid equal."

Paying $500 in tax for someone who makes $1200 a month means they are going to have a very horrible month, and will incur a whole lot of debt slowly through the year, because of it.

Someone paying $500 in tax, when they make millions, is just pocket change.


----------



## masterofthebass (Sep 29, 2011)

HelpCube said:


> Herman Cain is seriously underestimated here. Also, i've noticed so far in this thread pretty much no facts or solutions have been stated, just like most of the debates. Once again, the exceptions are Ron Paul and Herman Cain. If I was 18, I would vote for either of these 2 if they were nominated, I would certaintly prefer Cain though. For example, the 999 tax plan is the greatest plan ever invented. Seriously, everybody pays the same percentage of their pay. If "All people are created equal" (declaration of independence) then why do some have to pay a higher tax rate than others?


 
Because the people who have the most wealth set the income of the lower class. When someone is making 20k at a minimum wage job, the same percentage of taxes would be devastating to their lives as compared to someone who makes 10 million a year. Perhaps if the wealth was more evenly distributed between people, a flat tax could be more applicable.


----------



## Kian (Sep 29, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> Because the people who have the most wealth set the income of the lower class. When someone is making 20k at a minimum wage job, the same percentage of taxes would be devastating to their lives as compared to someone who makes 10 million a year. Perhaps if the wealth was more evenly distributed between people, a flat tax could be more applicable.


 
Well you're still working under the assumption that an income tax is a good idea. A national "FairTax" makes infinitely more sense. Simply put, it adds a 23% sales tax on all items and eliminates federal income taxes. It greatly reduces the need for the IRS, greatly reduces the ability to get out of taxation through loopholes, and it presents a situation in which taxes are, at least in part, determined by personal choice. 

In this situation clearly the rich will pay much, much more than the poor and the disparity will be likely similar to now, but it will now be a choice. The money raised will be roughly equal and be without a graduated income tax.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 29, 2011)

Kian, do you now see how you were wrong in the conversation between us, now that I have clearly pointed it out in my past post?
I'm asking this, cause it seems you are ignoring my post, where I corrected you.


----------



## Kian (Sep 29, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> Kian, do you now see how you were wrong in the conversation between us, now that I have clearly pointed it out in my past post?
> I'm asking this, cause it seems you are ignoring my post, where I corrected you.


 
I confused you and Ian because he at least attempted to respond with some explanation.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 29, 2011)

Kian said:


> I confused you and Ian because he at least attempted to respond with some explanation.


 
I did give you an explanation of why I wouldn't have that debate with someone like you.


----------



## masterofthebass (Sep 29, 2011)

Kian said:


> Well you're still working under the assumption that an income tax is a good idea. A national "FairTax" makes infinitely more sense. Simply put, it adds a 23% sales tax on all items and eliminates federal income taxes. It greatly reduces the need for the IRS, greatly reduces the ability to get out of taxation through loopholes, and it presents a situation in which taxes are, at least in part, determined by personal choice.
> 
> In this situation clearly the rich will pay much, much more than the poor and the disparity will be likely similar to now, but it will now be a choice. The money raised will be roughly equal and be without a graduated income tax.


 
I agree that other options are available than the standard income tax. The problem is that in no way will any president be able to make such a radical change to the country... The vast majority of ideological plans for the country are hardly practical. At this point in time, I think we need to be looking for someone who can put forth ideas that can both be beneficial and implementable in today's society.


----------



## Kian (Sep 29, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> I agree that other options are available than the standard income tax. The problem is that in no way will any president be able to make such a radical change to the country... The vast majority of ideological plans for the country are hardly practical. At this point in time, I think we need to be looking for someone who can put forth ideas that can both be beneficial and implementable in today's society.


 
It is certainly a long way away. I am not of the belief that the only person willing to try something like that (Paul) has any chance at being elected, but making it (and the people that support it) more public is the only way that we move forward towards a more practical tax code.


----------



## ZamHalen (Sep 29, 2011)

I don't like political parties, I say vote for the best man (or woman, though I don't see that happening). I conveniently don't turn 18 til two weeks after the 2012 election (the one that doesn't really count). But aside from that I don't trust any of these politicians.There is too much wrong with them.
Rowe Hessler for president 2012


----------



## drewsopchak (Sep 29, 2011)

Income is a measure of economic productivity. Tax consumption. Besides, what people save is what allows borrowing. Americans need so save money, and interest rates have to go up before the economy can grow.


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 29, 2011)

Ron Paul, but he's not a Republican so he won't win the nomination.


----------



## Tortin (Sep 29, 2011)

I'm writing in Rick Parry!


----------



## nlCuber22 (Sep 29, 2011)

ITT: 
Kian
A few rational people with sensible replies
People with much less experience and understanding than Kian (which would make sense, because he has a background influenced by politics) who think that they have an argument when they simply do not.

Please contemplate what you are saying and who you're dealing with before you act on your nonsensical, supercilious thoughts.

tl;dr think b4 u speek


Spoiler



^ Probably needed for a good bit of you, though my initial post was hardly more than 50 words.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 29, 2011)

drewsopchak said:


> Ron Paul ... He's never flip flopped


 
Daily Show?



Tortin said:


> I'm writing in Rick Parry!


 
Colbert Report.

Yah, I probably get most of my politics news from these two.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 29, 2011)

It's a shame that you guys don't have communism as an option.


----------



## Escher (Sep 29, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> It's a shame that you guys don't have communism as an option.


 
Or anarcho-syndicalism


----------



## Cuberguy21 (Sep 29, 2011)

I don't like any republican candidates at all.


----------

