Herman Cain Calls For Third Party | No Ron Paul Supporters Allowed (WTF?)

[Origanalist]

Ok, that's just creepy.

 

[Athan]

GOP lost one of their few black folks. Man minorities are just fleeing with out Ron Paul on the Republican ticket.

 

[Factushima]

No they didn't. They rejected Romney, and the Bush administration's long shadow that he chose to stand in. Not sure if you're aware, but the foreign policy advantage the GOP used to have is gone, because the GOP is The Endless War Party, and Americans are sick of war. Also, in this repugnant bailout era, they chose Mr. Wall Street Insider when they should have chosen the libertarian populist.

And they chose what? Statists progressives. That is the opposite of populist libertarians. Paul certainly couldn't have done worse than Romney.

I made this post before I saw the down-ballot situation. Turns out this was a referrendum on Romney vs. Obama not necessarily Republican vs Democrat. The state houses barely moved. I'll see what happens in 2014 before I can say what the 'people' are choosing.

That's not true either.

Do you always barge into forums, lecturing everyone, making assumptions, and castings aspersions?

Do you always have such a rude tone? I may be new but that doesn't mean I have to be timid and bashful. I'll put my opinion here (as that whats this place is for!!) and you can choose to read it or not. I cast no aspersions, make no assumptions. Everything I responded to can be found in the posts up till I put in my comment. Please take a look BEFORE responding.

Further, it would be nice if you'd debate the point and the person.

Do you and yours have any idea how many people from all walks of life were, and are, drawn to Ron's message? Do you also have any idea how many of those people refused to register as Republicans to vote for RP in the primary? Had he run as an Independent from the get-go, I believe he would have won easily. The GOP's small tent is the problem. It's the neo-Trot's way, or the highway.

Lets hear it: why isn't the Ron Paul movement based on identity? How many of Ron's positions require Ron to execute them for there to be credibility (two decades of consistency)? I'm not sure if everyone will sign up with Rand, or if they'll just wonder back into the woods. I suspect it will be a little of everything. Some will go to other candidates they don't believe in but believe to be electable, some will go to candidates they believe in but aren't electable and everything in between.

I'm sure thousands are drawn, but you need tens of millions. If they are not willing to register to support him in the primary (which takes about 30 seconds, then half an hour) they can't be counted as 'supporters'.

The Republican tent is the problem! I agree completely. That is precisely what my post is about! On the dot. This means finding room for the old guard, the religious people, the uniformed people, Ron Paul people, ect.

 

[Factushima]

Are you Herman Cain?

The part I bolded sounds just like something Herman Cain would say lol. I actually read it in my Herman Cain voice.

I'm trying to figure out what you meant here, seems as though you have no point.

 

[Factushima]

I've always been baffled by people who make assertions like this. I've never quite been able to fathom what they imagine they mean by it.

Its pretty simple: tolerance. You can't get a movement going of we only like one person's ideas.

I also notice that you speak in little other than vague, hand-waving generalities and sneering, contemptuous remarks directed at people with whom you disagree.

And then you have the gall to yap about the need to work with people you disagree with?

YOU DO GET IT! I'm not sure what you're confused about.

You do nothing more than make a string of flat assertions, without even making a token attempt to support them with evidence or reasoned argument.

Rarely does someone contradict themselves so much in one statement. What is quoted here is exactly what you did. On the dot. So, use your pathetic little criticisms to judge yourself.

In my experience, this is utterly typical of mealy-mouthed types who blather about nobody being "100% right" about anything.

You are not the slightest bit different from anyone you are wagging your finger at.

Except I'm willing to work with them. Tolerance goes two ways. Ironically, you proved my statement true: arrogance - intolerance.

Apparently, they - and you - mean "nobody is 100% right - except me."

Please see your previous statement beginning "You make a string of".

You are a hypocrite.

I think that ties it all up nicely.

 

[Occam's Banana]

[snip]

[snip]

To which I reply: quod erat demonstrandum

I cast no aspersions, make no assumptions.

On the contrary: every post you've made so far proves otherwise.

 

[Factushima]

To which I reply: quod erat demonstrandum



On the contrary: every post you've made so far proves otherwise.

You're short on content and long on personal attacks, not really my type.

Any-who....

Go read my post on the 2012 election. Tell me what you think.

 

[Victor Grey]

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm supposed to be asleep (really NEED to be asleep), but I saw this caught fire again and it needs a proper answer instead of what all's happening right now.

The arrogance here makes me laugh.

The people wholeheartedly rejected fiscal conservatives on Tuesday. That means Ron Paul's ideas. Romney was no fiscal conservative but he was far more than Obama was.

Your assertion is incorrect. It is based on the assumption either of the defacto existence of a linear progression from Obama through Romney out to Paul, or the perception of such a linear progression. Although it is clear that electoral perceptions are almost never tied to actuality, in fact such a direct linear progression exists neither in reality nor in perception.

In reality, the difference between Romney and Obama was not in the measure but the matter. The fiscal profligation between them can only be distinguished not by the volume of spending but the kinds of spending. Domestic vs Foreign, entitlements vs warfare, green energy vs blue bloods.

In perception, Paul's philosophy is almost universally (and properly) seen as tangential from either of these two options, and decidedly not a simply matter of "Romnyism carried to extremes" as you clearly imply.

It is for this reason that Paul tested better against Obama than Romney. Indeed, Paul picks up more liberal, progressive, and left-wing (to the left of Obama) voters than any other Republican, including outright liberal progressive Jon Huntsman. Were he perceived as "everything we hate in Romney carried to the extreme," then logically that could not be the case.

Obama ---> Romney ---> Paul is neither in reality nor is in perception a linear fiscal progression of conservatism, without which relationship your point above is moot.

The Republican party is, and always has been, a party of coalition. We must bring together people who don't agree on everything and work on the issues we can solve together. What I see here on this board is some in the Ron Paul (who is done with politics btw) movement expecting to get elected by magical unicorns. The election proved that Paul was rejected by Independents, Republicans, and most of all Democrats.

This simply demonstrates that despite your posture and bluster, you haven't been paying attention. Although (if you want to work within the false left-right paradigm) Paul is to the extreme right of Goldwater and Reagan, JUST LIKE GOLDWATER AND REAGAN he picks up more support from the left than does any moderate. This is not mere assertion, but the conclusion of regular polling data having been taken over the course of the 2012 primaries.

Now we're concocting some scheme to take over the nomination of the same party that some in the movement are actively rejecting! How is that expected to work? "Hey, we won't stand with you at all but you should come over here and support us." They'll reject us like we rejected them.

They lost, and continue to lose not because they rejected us specifically, but because they have rejected the principles which we stand for. That is quite independent of us as persons or of Ron Paul individually.

If they continue to reject the Taft/Goldwater principles of Constitutional and Liberty Conservatism, then they will continue to lose. If they embrace them then they will begin to win again.

This will hold true whether we are part of the equation or not. There are enough of them left as a remnant in the GOP who remember that to form strong alliances with if some of the people in our direct movement mature a bit and swallow their egos and do the work and work the politics.

This has never been about persons or personality but about principle. Those who are stuck on persons and personality (on either side of this divide) are dead weight, and their sloughing can only help.

If the Paul movement breaks off the Republican party they're done. 100% not electable. We would get crushed by the two big parties.

Yes, obviously, unless the Republican party implodes, and the general public is left to choose which faction they prefer, in which case that may not be the case at all. Our platform -- even as imperfectly articulated by Ron Paul -- picks up more independent and left support than any other Republican faction currently extant.

Herman Cain didn't say "we don't need Ron Paul people" as so many here assume. He said that the Ron Paul movement wasn't the viable vehicle to a third party.

You are aggressively splitting hairs here. Herman Cain wants his 3rd party to based in theocratic zealots, pro-war patriots, and pro-bankster fiscal semiconservatives. A more deeply marginal retooling of the Reagan coalition. I can see why Cain is trying to fall back onto a more excessive and radical version of the original Reagan coalition, after all, what worked 32 years ago has to work again right?

Sadly, no. The world has moved on. We have to go back to Taft and Goldwater and forge a NEW coalition, and not the same tired formula that has been beat into apathy under the abuses of both Bushes, and driven comatose by McCain and Romney.

The Paul movement is built on identity. If, god forbid, Ron Paul were to die that would be the end. He's calling for something bigger. He didn't say he won't accept Paul people,

He kinda did. He said that Ron Paul and his people are not the answer to whatever will bring people together and save our nation. The problem is that we are. Indeed, we are the ONLY answer otherwise America dies.

Why do you think we are so passionate about the surety of our position here? The scales have fallen from our eyes, and the destituteness of the American framework had become apparent. America either restores the Constitution or dies. The Ron Paul platform is the perfect and exact representation of the Constitution applied to political office. Those who are afraid of Paul are in fact afraid of the Constitution, because he is a precise representation of Constitutional government.

This is not about Paul, or me, or you, or anybody on this site. It is about a government that obeys the Constitution full stop. Failing that America dies. If you think I am exaggerating, then you aren't paying attention. If our goal is for America to survive and not to die, then our one and only shot is a full court press -- full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.

America doesn't have 30 years to play nice and go back to "slightly more conservative" some time in the later half of this century. We are going to be over the cliff and a pile of rubble at the bottom in two years. Three if we are very lucky.

It is literally do or die time, and we don't have time to play nice.

he said we need to form a BROADER coalition. To be honest I don't know how many in the Paul movement expect to become mainstream if they refuse to participate in coalitions. Why are Obama and the dems getting elected? They come together as a coalition first then have the fights over policy once they're in.

Here is the coalition we offer: GOP obeys the Constitution or they will continue to lose until they no longer exist as a party and clears the way for a new party that will.

It would be great if we had 25 years to crack this nut, and get to a solution by hand-holding and gentle coaching, singing kumbaya and demonstrating the merits of actually obeying the Constitution (instead of merely paying it lip-service).

But we don't. We quite possibly don't have 2.5 years much less 25. Nobody wants to be the bull in the china shop, but if that's the only path to escape death and dissolution, then the Patriot stands to his duty and does what he has to. Restore the Constitutional order (the real Constitution, which looks like What Ron and Rand Paul do, not the fake politicaly expedient Constitution that looks like what Herman Cain and Mitt Romney do) immediately or die trying. Because if we fail, America dies BEFORE the next Presidential election.

We're never getting anywhere if we refuse to elect anyone who doesn't agree with all of use 100%. To that end: we aren't 100% right, nobody is.

I agree, nobody is 100% right. There was only one perfect Man, and not even His followers really listen to Him. It seems the closer one is to perfection, the less likely they are to be heard and taken seriously by their contemporaries. It takes generations before the truth finally sinks in, and by then the truth-teller is long dead.

I can tell you this much with utmost confidence. America is heading towards a 1000 foot cliff at 60mph under President Obama. It would have been a whole 5mph less at 55mph under Romney, no effective difference, because neither of them obey the Constitution, nor have they any desire to. The collapse differentiated between the two speeds by days if not hours.

There is one, and only one solution to saving America in this late hour, and that is to restore the Constitutional order across all strata of American government. The actual and whole Constitution and not just the bits Herman Cain likes but ignoring the bits that are inconvenient.

When you have the only answer, and you know that you have the only answer, and it's 4th and 10 with only 30 seconds left on the clock, then all you can do is step up and go for it. The rest of the Republican Party can either coalesce around our leadership, or be responsible for the death of America because they stood by and did nothing the the final hour of their last chance.

 

[Occam's Banana]

You're short on content and long on personal attacks, not really my type.

Any-who....

Go read my post on the 2012 election. Tell me what you think.

Sorry. Troll-feeding time is over. Go beg for scraps from someone else's table.

 

[truelies]

Cain is an idiot who is not an utterly unknown nobody ONLY because of affirmative action.

 

[truelies]

That said there is a crying need for a political party devouted to needs and interests of middle Americans- those who own the non-Fortune 500 businesses and those who draw a wage in private industry as a counter balance to the 1% and the state employed nomenclatura.

Platform? - liquidation of the state employed nomenclatura as a class.

 

[tod evans]

I really like this picture!

 

[Lindsey]

We must really be winning.

Diebold must've reported our real numbers back to TPTB - they must be scared.

 

[MikeStanart]

This is as relevant as this man will ever be.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I posted this in another thread which addressed a similar topic of splitting from the GOP and forming a new party, and it is even more relevant here in light of Cain's statement where he "called for a large faction of Republican Party leaders to desert the party and form a third, more conservative party"

It is political suicide. If the GOP split they would lose control of the US House, 29 State Senates and 31 State Houses (if I counted them correctly). Basically what would happen is the Democratic party would be in control of the House, Senate and every state legislature. With the power of incumbency (on average 80% of incumbents are reelected), it could take a decade or more before this new party could gain control of a legislative body.

The better solution is to challenge RINO incumbents in the primaries, and run qualified conservative candidates for open seats at the federal, state and local level. Splitting only puts both the GOP and the new party into a near permanent minority position.

 

[Occam's Banana]

This is as relevant as this man will ever be.

This is America ... (Land of Honey Boo Boo) ... so that's pretty damned relevant.

 

[Origanalist]

I really like this picture!

That's a keeper.

 

[marc1888]

Tea Party 2012 version 2.0

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

This is actually hilarious. Sure - let the GOP splinter! The more divided it gets, the easier it will be to take over the portion of the party that actually carries some weight with the American electorate (or potentially could carry). I enjoy watching the GOP in shambles right now. They are getting what they deserve, at long last.