Talk-Polywell.org

Folks here are generally more informed than I am, but I feel this guy is the pick of the litter and he was unknown to me until the SC debate. Here is a web page with videos.

http://www.hermancain.com/inner.asp?z=2

PJTV has a good interview with him which might still be public access, or archived on youtube. I'd find it for ya but I am at work and those sites are blocked.

It kind of reminds me of the old Jack Benny joke. Jack (a notorious miser on the radio, but a very philanthropic guy in real life) was stopped by a thief - "Your money or your life!" was the demand.

Jack paused.

"Well!?" the thief demanded.

"I'm thinking! I'm thinking!"

Okay, all jokes aside, I'd have no problems voting for Cain. Or Romney, or any other possible Republican candidate. I'd love to see a Cain/Palin or Cain/Bachman ticket. What I DON'T want to see is some ancient RINO get it because 'it's his turn' - like Dole or McCain.

And it'd be funny watching the media try to play the racism card on non-Obama Cain voters...

But vote for Obama? No. He's had his chance, time for some new talent in the barrel. Maybe someone who actually understands that the country can be broke, even though we still have checks - and that $2 tril income and $3.6 tril spending simply can't be sustained no matter how good your oratorical skills are.

PJTV Cain 13 May 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4x8uggNyhk

Cain is better than Mc-Cain.

Diogenes wrote:Cain is better than Mc-Cain.

Yep. But I'd like to see Cain's position on prohibitions.

Gun prohibitions.
Drug prohibitions.
Food prohibitions.

I looked at his site and couldn't find anything. A search may be in order.

Here is a man who doesn't understand the issue (video):

http://a12iggymom.wordpress.com/2011/04 ... migration/

Drug Cartels couldn't exist without Government support.

MSimon,
Other than Ron Paul, you won't find anyone to side with Libertarians on the drug issue. Diogenes is mainstream on the make drugs illegal approach. You will also likely find Cain to be traditional on Gay marriage. I could be wrong on that point though. Cain is for return of the gold standard.

Romney and Santorum are the ones most likely to get the chance to lose to Obama. I may be delusional, but I think H. Cain is the only Republican who could beat Obama.

Ron Paul is the candidate I would really prefer.

MSimon wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Cain is better than Mc-Cain.

Yep. But I'd like to see Cain's position on prohibitions.

Gun prohibitions.
Drug prohibitions.
Food prohibitions.

I looked at his site and couldn't find anything. A search may be in order.

Here is a man who doesn't understand the issue (video):

http://a12iggymom.wordpress.com/2011/04 ... migration/

Drug Cartels couldn't exist without Government support.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4x8uggNyhk

Skip to around 4:30

mvanwink5 wrote:MSimon,
Other than Ron Paul, you won't find anyone to side with Libertarians on the drug issue. Diogenes is mainstream on the make drugs illegal approach. You will also likely find Cain to be traditional on Gay marriage. I could be wrong on that point though. Cain is for return of the gold standard.

Romney and Santorum are the ones most likely to get the chance to lose to Obama. I may be delusional, but I think H. Cain is the only Republican who could beat Obama.

Ron Paul is the candidate I would really prefer.

Gary Johnson. And Sarah Palin is edging in that direction "we have more important things to do".

I have been following the drug war closely for the last 20 years. Writing about it extensively for 10 or 12 years.

Soros is funding the left and he is one crafty bastard. I'm betting that in Aug. or Sept. of 2012 he will make something happen to bring the issue front and center to the campaign. If we don't have a candidate who can at least do a plausible pivot we are sunk.

When guys like our Diogenes start giving up on the Drug War on 4th and 5th Amendment grounds I'd say the ground is starting to give way under that issue.

I know a retired Detective who is working Congress on that issue. He says it will be over by 2015. Which makes 2012 a cusp year in terms of attitude change. i.e. it wouldn't take much energy to cause a shift in 2012. By 2014 even less.

BTW Obama campaigned as an anti-war candidate. He governed that way initially. And then reality set in. Now he is aproximately Bush II on the issue. I believe the same thing would happen to Paul despite his convictions. i.e. he would get educated by reality.

EricF,

OK that covers guns.

mvanwink5 wrote:Ron Paul is the candidate I would really prefer.

Ron Paul was the only US candidate in the last 20 years that I really liked.
At least he has a very strict intellectual honesty which is very hard to find in the rest of he people that attempted to reach the White House in the past years.

Yet I think his age will be a big issue. The guy is class of '35, that means he will be 78 by the time of the next election.

Oldest president in US history to start a term if he wins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pr ... tes_by_age

( Watching, bemused, from UK )

Used to be, IIRC, that a candidate was selected who stood a fair chance of re-election.

Perhaps, given the probability that a POTUS will find *some* way to disappoint a majority, perhaps candidates will be chosen specifically to run for only one term...

Cheaper, too ??