The Right Scoop
Well, I'd like to see the other candidates before I make an informed decision.
Anyhow, here is what I thought of all 5 candidates:
Ron Paul = He makes good valid points which are easier said than done. Realistically, completely moving out of foreign policy is not an option. I agree that it's time to bring our troops home, since they shouldn't be involved in nation building. Domestically, I think he has the right of it. Less government and give the power back to the people.
Herman Cain = It's inspirational in seeing a candidate that is not part of the Washington/Government elite. Realistically, I don't think he'll get much traction. Then again anything can happen!
Tim Pawlenty = Another puppet - sorry, but that was my first impression. A word of advice to whoever is coaching him. They should tell him to stop being so fake and to be himself.
Rick Santorum - I think he means well - but he has too many baggages as a politician. BTW, his comment about reaffirming women at the home and how radical feminism has corrupted the family is so true. I'm a woman and me personally I think that feminism has destroyed the family.
Gary Johnson - if you strip away his mannerism or lack of, you'll see a candidate that is neutral in social views, made a good statement on how to handle immigration that we can all agree on and he is no different in Ron Paul's stance when it comes to foreign policy.
So did any of them make a great impression? Except for Herman Cain who isn't a politician, quiet honestly, nope.
HERMAN CAIN IS FANTASTIC PERSON,AND KNOWS HIS STUFF. IF WE CAN'T HAVE ALLEN WEST THEN GO CAIN. GREAT AMERICAN
Just as John Ashcroft lost an election to a dead guy...I would also vote a dead guy over Obama.
Patriots Network has the full thing...as well as tons of other great videos that I think you'll like.
So... Hermain Cain is a qualified candidate because he's the CEO of Godfather's Pizza?!?! Why not put an ad in craigslist for a candidate.
this is to all the "idiots" who call Ron Paul supporters(or other libertarians) neo-cons.
have you actually looked at what that word means? libertarians are far from neo-cons, and, if you need help here is you "webster" momment:
Libertarian — A libertarian opposes most or all government activites. Does not favor much or any government support for either moral or economic systems.Neoconservative — A "neocon" is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well.will one of you who seem "enlightened"(elitists in my book for speaking without thinking, just like a dumb-o-crap) please show me where and when Ron Paul(or any other "true" libertarian) actually wanted more government coercion?i swear, it is getting to the point of calling all of you out for being closet libtards. do your homework, and pay attention to what words you are using in describing someone. i personally love Ron Paul(me being from texas also), i think his age is his downfall, nothing else seems to be(personal thought).
Are you sure you sent this to the right place? I have not heard a single claim like you mention anywhere here.
@Tyler314:disqus this is what rich posted earlier yesturday:
Oy, the Ron Paul fans are as bad, or worse, than the Palin fans. They come in full force all at once to tell the rest of the masses that they are all nothing but neo-cons who don't fully comprehend the constitution. After all, only Ron Paul has the ability to do that.
this MORON needs to get a clue, no one here has said anything like this(of course, i had to work during the debate, so i may have missed something). just saying tyler, you and i run along the same line of thinking most of the time, and i dont get why people misrepresent others all the time. plus, it was the fact of a learning lesson to those who use the word neo-con without thinking much about what that word means.
Some Paul supporters do pretty much just call the more conservative types "neo-cons" without knowing what it means. What I was asking you about was when you said that people were calling Paul supporters "neo-cons." I wanted to know who was doing that...because that I have NOT seen.
Man, there's a lot of paulistinians in here. You guys are nice principled folks that mean well but unfortunately he won't get over 15% of the vote. If you care for your country and don't want a repeat of 2008, please don't do such foolish thing. If any GOP candidate gets the liberal (MSM) seal of approval, that's the kiss of death, remember 2008 and the media candidate john Mclame, the media darling and veteran. Liberals ruin whatever they touch, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. e.g. BHO. Watch out for fake republicans crossing over in the NH primaries and nominating a strawman as the republican candidate for president.
How McCain won the primaries is beyond me. I think it's part of the fact that the masses aren't educating themselves. What's more sad though is that McCain still managed to win the Senate race just this last year...not that his opponent was any kind of great leader...but certainly better than him by a long shot.
People waking up is what's going to save this country...regardless of who's our next president. We could have the best president ever and it won't matter if the masses are still willfully ignorant zombies who want to keep getting their "freebies" and insist that the politicians fight hard to keep "their piece" of the pie so-to-speak.
People are even going to vote for Santorum because of their principles...but that won't help us either really because he's being voted for for all the wrong reasons if he manages to win the primaries.
Some people think that the globalists arranged it so that McCain would go against obama as they knew obama would beat McCain. Some people found themselves in the unhappy position of holding their nose and voting for McCain to keep obama from winning.
Can anyone really tell me that McCain isn't basically the R version of Obama by which I also mean Bush III? That's why so many independent voters either voted for Obama or didn't bother to vote. McCain was just more of the same and everybody and their dog knew we couldn't have that. It's just a shame that BOTH candidates were all about selling America out.
If the socialist in the whitehouse has done did much damage in his 1st term imagine what he'll do in the second term when he has nothing to lose. Deny, deny, lying through their teeth and calling their opponents "racists" is the DNC's new strategy. Whatever st. obummer says is gospel, that's the hope & change. Nothing can be done to reach the obamatrons, worshippers, & obamazombies, they're clueless. 'Hope' they didn't notice there's only 'change' in their pockets. Don't give up on the american citizenry, who saw through obumbler's
deceit regarding his birth certificate and the OBL fiasco. There is hope yet, the guys on stage today are second tier, VP material. The best is yet to come. GoD works in mysterious ways.
If Rand and Ron both run...then I will just watch them both duke it out and vote for whichever one is better. So far, Rand seems to have all the same beliefs and Libertarian-leaning ways of his dad...only he's younger and able to "deliver better" as some might say.
The only problem I truly see in Paul and it's real apparent by people's misinterpretations of his words as well as them saying things like "He sounds like that crazy old man on the porch" is that he just talks like the almost 80 year old man that he is. If he were younger and able to put more "oomph" into what he says...then I can guarantee you he would be more popular than he is...which leads to the problem that too many candidates are voted on how well they present themselves...or as we saw with Obama...how well they can act. I agree with you that "God" does work in mysterious ways and no matter what, things will happen as they are meant to.
I donated to Ron Paul's pac yesterday and I will vote for him given the chance. That said, the lack of time for Ron Paul really hurt him in this debate. He's better in other formats. He did not get to answer the economic (gas prices) and immigration question for some reason. After a few more debates, and the MOMENT Ron Paul goes head to head with Cain, it'll be smoothly over.
Some thoughts I had were:
Santorum could make Satan seem warm.
Pawlenty looks like a cheesy caricature of a southern Republican.
Gary Johnson was shaky, almost fidgety and it was annoying.
Given that Cain seemed to have more questions, he almost dominated because he's SO LIKEABLE. I found him likeable. This, coming from a Paultard. But, he may have won this battle but he'll win the war. How many wars does that make it now? I've lost count.
- Fat Lib, is out.
It's sad that candidates are still being chosen on basis of whether they're "likable." Did we learn nothing from Bush? He sure seemed like a good ol' boy and his opponent was not any better or worse (in both of his races)...just less "likable."
Johnson is actually a good choice for the same reasons why Christie and Palin would be if they stepped in...he's got an actual record of getting things done and governing properly.
Actually...yes he was. There were a lot of people (especially around here) who said that he was the "kind of guy I'd like to have a beer with." He played the "good ol' boy" card even though he never had the kind of middle-class or blue-collar kind of upbringing that the people he pandered to had.
Well, they all came across good, except for Pawlenty and Santorum. My mother who is a Democrat but does not like Obama said she thought Ron Paul, Herman Cain and Gary Johnson were "sweet". Santorum reminded us both of hannity - arrogant p*. He kept pointing his thumb at himself, it was disgusting.
It seems strange to have two libertarians running. Do we really need to split that vote? And Ron Paul has also got things done - he's voted no all the time. That's my preferred way of getting things done. (I know, So did Gary Johnson).
But, in my opinion the three guys in the middle had much more time than the guys on the end and that decided it.
So have many others with an R by their name. He's Pennsylvania's Senator and if the people of Pennsylvania like him...then he can stay their Senator. No reason for them to push this man on the rest of us and destroy our country with it.
Weak how? You told me to Google the other candidates. You should do the same. The man has a great record for having turned his state around and even earned the nickname "Veto King." Hardly "weak" in my view.
Santorum is intense and don't always come across very well but I can tell you he is well liked in Pa because he listens to and fights for the people of pa. As an example, Santorum has been working to overturn the health care mandate.
If the masses would actually bother to educate themselves about these candidates, then we wouldn't need to waste their time with these useless debates anyway. Yeah. I'd probably say Daniels would be my second choice out of all the ones who spoke tonight.
Cain's past with the Fed and even recently (earlier this year on his radio show) saying that we shouldn't audit them...doesn't bode well with me. The Federal Reserve is worse than Al-Quada, every jihadist on Earth, and all the tyrannical dictators on the planet combined as far as I'm concerned.
I can see all the Paultards showed up here tonight. I like his fiscal policies but his foreign policy stinks on ice and just plain crazy.
Trying something new wouldn't be a good idea? Heck...it's not really new. It's just something that used to work before we decided to send hundreds of thousands of troops to over 700 bases all over the world. We're running an empire and we're going broke. You know who else did that? Rome...and we all know what happened to them.
I guess this is what happens when we decide to stop governing ourselves and allow the government to TELL us how our lives and country will be run.
It is one of many things that has happened as a result of that. I'm still hopeful that Paul might actually get in this time, but even if he doesn't...his philosophy for the sake of the young people needs to resonate louder and clearer than he alone is able to express it.
Like I said, I like what Ron Paul has said regarding the Constitution and individual liberties, but his foreign policy is a deal breaker for a lot of people. And when someone tries to bring up Paul's issues with foreign policy and recently his specific flip flopping when it comes to immigration, with him now supporting an almost open border policy, he and his supporters always retreat to the Federal Reserve issue.
I realize he's immensely popular, but the libertarian shift in the nation isn't quite to the point where someone like Ron Paul could become president. Now another Paul, Rand could become president one day.
And frankly, I think Ron Paul sticks his foot in the ring just so he can get the issues important to him brought up in a debate. Fortunately for him, he has millions of supporters who easily give him the money to do it.
I think someone else said it best at one point. This kind of stuff is what the primaries are for. As someone who believes that the Federal Reserve is quite possibly the biggest culprit in the destruction of our country...I enjoy hearing Paul being the one candidate who's willing to just flat-out say "We need to end the Fed."
Cain who so many seem to like...was a deputy chairman and a chairman of the Fed in Kansas City and even earlier this year stated on his radio broadcast that there's "no need to audit the Fed."
Paul's foreign policy may be a deal breaker for a lot of you "freedom fighters," but someone saying plainly that we need not even bother forcing accountability for the Federal Reserve is a much more serious offense to me than any potential consequence of actually bringing our troops home.
While I like what Cain has said, I don't believe in him for several reasons but one stands out to me .
Hermain Cain was Chairman of the Federal Reserve in 95&96 and has recently stated and fought against an audit of the Federal Reserve. C'mon now, no audit of the Federal Reserve, the instituiton that possibly controls most things and decisions. I don't think I can trust someone that has the Federal Reserve's best interest.
Actually he has said he supports an audit of the Fed and making it transparent, but what he doesn't want is a complete abolition of the Fed, mainly because doing away with the Fed means the dollar goes with it.
Yes. We heard Boner...er...I mean Bohner say that he would do things right this time instead of going along with the big government stuff the way he did with Bush. What is he doing? Going right along with everything Obama does.
We can't take these people at their word...any of them. The records do say a lot about a person...much more than their empty promises. What about all these supposed "Tea Party" guys? Where the heck are all of them? I haven't seen a lot out of them after the people trusted them on their word alone with the exception of only a few of them.The only record stain Paul's got that I've seen so far is that he's allowed appropriations for his district, but hey...I would get some of my peoples' money back too if I wasn't able to change the system to stop stealing their money in the first place.
If you think Cain's changed his mind...take a look at the date of that link from Ben. He said that just a few months ago...not years ago. Sketchy at best.
Maybe so, but we still need to vet the guys record. We do not need anymore Rhino's in DC. We need doer who have solid fundamental beliefs in freedom and limited government, not players who game the sheeple.
Uhh even Glenn Beck supported the bank bailouts initially. People change their minds with more information.
While supporting the bank bailouts Cain also supported nationalizing the banks and went as far as criticizing opponents of the bailout, calling them “free market purists” and absurdly claiming that no valid criticism had been brought forward.
Those are not the words of a free market, tea party conservative. They are the words of someone that defers to government when it comes to matters of principle.
http://004eeb5.netsolhost.com/hc133.htmhttp://004eeb5.netsolhost.com/hc129.htm
No he didn't http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiAkeFJXwUk&feature=player_embedded
Herman Cain also supported the bailout for the banks, I'm not sure how that supports the tea party, in fact that goes against what we believe in. Now when Cain announced he was running he took down removed those links about the bailout from his website. I think we need more info on this guy.
Oy, the Ron Paul fans are as bad, or worse, than the Palin fans. They come in full force all at once to tell the rest of the masses that they are all nothing but neo-cons who don't fully comprehend the constitution. After all, only Ron Paul has the ability to do that.
this wasn't a debate, just a gimmick of a 24 hr news cycle, it will be forgotten soon enough.
Ron Paul's extreme Libertarian viewpoints on foreign policy may sound great in theory, but seem borderline dangerous to me in practical application. I can agree with him on other issues, particularly fiscal ones, but national security is too important to trust to a guy who doesn't want to deal with anything happening outside our own immediate borders. Sorry, can't and won't ever vote for him.
Santorum and Cain came off the best in the debate, I think. I give the slight edge to Santorum, as I think he got dealt a harder question or two, and still managed to answer effectively. Cain is an extreme longshot, but I like almost everything I'm hearing from him at this point.
It's not like non-interventionalism has actually been tried in the past hundred years. We are the world's number one manufacturer in weapons. The reason so many other countries have the kind of weaponry they even have (though nowhere near our quality) is because we sold our old ones to their dictators.
The idea that Paul is somehow just "weak" and "doesn't want to deal with anything" is false. I don't know how that got circulated, but being the Constitution-abider he is, he would've actually made sure that war was declared properly when Al-Quada attacked us, so we could've maybe been done with this "War on Terror" years ago instead of letting it linger on in an endless police action.
But..."God" forbid we try something new in regards to security. I know I feel a lot safer with the TSA one step away from cavity searching everyone in addition to the grope-downs and radiation boxes. Don't you? C'mon now.
Instead of continuing to state that the war was not "declared properly", I really want to hear just what you consider properly declaring war is.
Well then, I would have to conclude that you're in some form of denial on this because the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) is a declaration of war passed by Congress, for comparison here is the text of the declaration of war against Japan, while the language is a tad more formal it is quite similar to the AUMF. http://www.historyguy.com/worldwartwo/declaration_of_war_against_japan_1941.htm
No. This link is just proof of what I was talking about in the first place. This "War on Terror" was designed to be never-ending. Since there was no truly defined objective or target...more and more "targets" will continue to pop up and we will never get out of this drain of our nation's resources until one of three things happens.
1. Someone with some common sense gets into the White House
2. Congress scrounges up the gall to actually tell the president together "We're not going to fund your warfare state any longer."
3. Our nation goes bankrupt and neither the Congress or president can actually expand this "war" any further.
In addition I would also respond to this;"you probably think that because Al-Quada isn't an actual nation, but a group of people...you can't actually declare war" this has never passed my lips or crossed my mind or keyboard.
Declaring war is simply signing a legal declaration of war which states a specific target, a specific objective and therefore...a specific "success" or "end game." On other words, an actual declaration of war would specify exactly what the mission is instead of leaving it open-ended as this "War on Terror" is and will continue to be as long as we are in it.
Now, if you haven't already stated it...you probably think that because Al-Quada isn't an actual nation, but a group of people...you can't actually declare war. On the contrary...you can...and can do so the same way with the same objectives and goal-setting as you would if you waged war against another nation.
I've heard Ron Paul talk about Afghanistan and our decision to go there (at least initially, to rout the Taliban) and his responses, even after our being attacked on 9-11, have been lukewarm at best. Yes, he acknowledges America's right to defend itself, but only after begin attacked first, by a clearly defined enemy. Sorry, but in the world we currently live in, things are no longer that simple.
I wouldn't call Paul "weak" necessarily, although he has a shrugging, matter-of-fact way of explaining himself that might play to the true believers, but I don't believe will come off as presidential to voters. I would call him naive, perhaps dangerously so.
I believe, despite agreeing on many of the same things, that strict Libertarianism is flawed. The rights of the individual cannot be maintained in every single instance, because the world is not that black and white. So we're not going to see eye to eye here, basically.
There's a very specific reason why the "Don't Tread On Me" flag has a rattlesnake on it. That was originally our stance on national defense. This "new breed" of enemy doesn't make it somehow all of a sudden really hard to go in and get them should they attack us. That's our willingness to follow the Geneva Convention rules and not fight this thing like a real war. I don't suppose you believe that the Patriot Act is a good thing, do you...or NSA's partnership with Google? Our freedoms have been and are continuing to be taken away in the name of this "War on Terror" instead of actually fighting the war the way we should and being done with it. Things are definitely black and white when you view the difference between freedom and tyranny and unfortunately, we're leaning further and further towards the latter and this always happens in the greatest amount the fastest during war.
![[EXTENDED VIDEO] Heartwarming moment when old woman finds dog ALIVE in rubble](http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/plugins/special-recent-posts/cache/MTI1MTAwbm9vbGR3b21hbl9mb3VuZF9kb2dfYWxpdmU=.jpg)
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.