I'm confused about the American Republican party

[shoju]

I would have voted for Herman Cain.... If I were a republican.

If only for the simple fact that the man ran a successful pizza company. The pizza business is a pretty crazy business, and to build an empire out of that means you either know a ton about how to make the most money possible, or you know how to surround yourself with people smart enough to figure out how to make the most money.

That, and Romney, and Newt would NEVER see a vote from me.

But that's getting a little off topic.

[kandrathe]

I would have voted for Herman Cain.... If I were a republican.

It shows another oddity of our system. He probably did less than Bill Clinton, but even allegations of "hound dogging" lost him any hope of appeal to the moral right wingers/evangelicals. Without them, he was not viewed as viable as the Republican candidate. But, he might have broader appeal than Romney or Santorum in the actual election.

For Republicans, the longer campaign cycle hurts as the investigative/sensationalist media have more time to find/twist image killing hit pieces. For Clinton, the Gennifer Flowers thing was out there, but nobody pressed it. It seemed true to me at the time, and I began to question Clinton's character in general.

For Obama, there is still no explanation for how a <B student gets accepted into Harvard Law, and was it due to his Muslim Brotherhood connections to Khalid al-Mansour? Hannity, especially tried to go after him with Wright and Ayers, but pretty much stood alone as a rabid dog. Obama was/is on thin ice with the powerful Jewish vote out east, and had he been strongly linked to strong Palistinian supporters, like Wright, Al-Mansour, and others, then he'd have had a harder time. His alliance with the Clinton's probably helped to ease the fears of that constituency as they are almost Neo-cons.

So, I'm not saying these things would deny someone the election, but if any Republican had even loose ties to neo-Nazi's or right wing militias we'd know every detail. Heck, they make up stuff, and hire phony accusers then get it to stick.

[Jester]

For Obama, there is still no explanation for how a <B student gets accepted into Harvard Law, and was it due to his Muslim Brotherhood connections to Khalid al-Mansour? Hannity, especially tried to go after him with Wright and Ayers, but pretty much stood alone as a rabid dog.

Harvard doesn't (and didn't) just strictly accept the top academic slice of students. That's a sure way to get your student body to boil over, with lots of splattered bodies in Harvard yard. They accept some slice of students with slightly lower marks, but who have distinguished themselves in some other way - no doubt his community organizer past looked like an asset. Diversity is also a major factor for admissions committees, which probably helped. No doubt, given his eloquence and inspiring personal history, he wrote a hell of an application. There are all sorts of reasons why he might have been accepted. Since his transcripts are sealed, we don't know what his grades even are - it has been suggested that the lack of honours is a matter of his degree length (2 years, as a transfer student), which would have prevented him from receiving them. We don't even know he was a B student. Given his record at Harvard Law and since, they clearly made the right choice.

Or we can spin conspiracies about the Muslim Brotherhood, based on practically nothing. That's also cool. I mean, if Trump's on board, there must be something to it, right?

Obama was/is on thin ice with the powerful Jewish vote out east...

Obama won more than 3/4 of the Jewish vote. His support among Jews is still double digits higher than his average support. Obama is not, and never has been, in trouble with Jewish voters.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Harvard doesn't (and didn't) just strictly accept the top academic slice of students. That's a sure way to get your student body to boil over, with lots of splattered bodies in Harvard yard. They accept some slice of students with slightly lower marks, but who have distinguished themselves in some other way - no doubt his community organizer past looked like an asset.

Well, not much of a past, but in 1986/7 it was his recent present. He started the organizer stint in 82, and he started Harvard Law in 1988. He wasn't cum laude at Columbia. Harvard Law base qualifications are LSAT 169 to 175 and a GPA above 3.72.

Diversity is also a major factor for admissions committees, which probably helped. No doubt, given his eloquence and inspiring personal history, he wrote a hell of an application. There are all sorts of reasons why he might have been accepted. Given his record at Harvard Law and since, they clearly made the right choice.

They also require at least three stellar recommendations. You can't just eloquently talk your way into the program.

Or we can spin conspiracies about the Muslim Brotherhood, based on practically nothing. That's also cool. I mean, if Trump's on board, there must be something to it, right?

Well, there is more to it than just some rich guy with questions. There is the recorded interview where Percy Sutton said he was introduced to Obama by Al Mansour who was helping him raise the funds to attend Harvard.

[Quark]

Herman Cain's tax plan was based off mathematical impossibilities. Oh and look, Kandrathe's stirring up the Muslim boogeyman as slyly as possible.

[kandrathe]

Herman Cain's tax plan was based off mathematical impossibilities.

Everyone's tax plan (incl. the Republican boy genius Ryan) is mathematically impossible. Or, perhaps better stated, politicians are unwilling to commit political suicide by presenting a mathematically possible plan.

Oh and look, Kandrathe's stirring up the Muslim boogeyman as slyly as possible.

Actually, not. I'm just trying to make the point that there are mysteries that are off limits for Dems. Like, do you have a past filled with sexual harrassment, and extramarital affairs? This is not just Bill Clinton. Take Edwards as a second example. During his campaign it was hushed or blamed as a political hit job. Or, Barney Frank, who's live in boy friend ran a brothel out of Frank's house.

Or, how does a poorly paid community organizer with poor undergraduate performance get selected to, and afford attending an elite school? Even if you limited the pool to black students, don't you think there were hundreds of better candidates for Harvard Law? With Cain, you can see a whole trail of success and advancement. You look at his life, and it has a predictable trajectory. Obama's life isn't like that, and no one dares to dig into it? I'm not limiting this to Dems either. The Bush's had plenty of skeleton's that remain buried, or not discussed. For the voter, sometimes, these personal demons and character flaws do matter, and should influence our selection of people who lead us.

[Quark]

Alright, Glenn Beck, I get it. You're just asking questions to show your concern. It's not like that's dangerous territory, or anything.

Facts, Research, or GTFO.

[kandrathe]

Alright, Glenn Beck, I get it. You're just asking questions to show your concern. It's not like that's dangerous territory, or anything.

Facts, Research, or GTFO.

Yeah. No. I'm not hinting at anything. My opinion is that Obama has connections that people/media don't want to talk about. I don't think he's a secret member of the muslim brotherhood, or "The Mansourian Candidate". I think he used all his connections to get ahead. I'm not sure if he'd "throw them under the bus" like he seemingly did to Wright, but he has adeptly navigated troubled political waters. I believe he cultivates his connections to garner political advantage. Going to Wright's church gave him credibility in that community for a political advantage. In fact, if the race was between Obama and Romney, I'd probably vote for Obama.

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest. I'm pretty much done with having conversations and needing to back up opinions with hours of detailed research. I'd like to engage in polite, friendly, conversation, and not in a war of words, recriminations, and accusations of intent. Ok?

But, here is a google link to "Percy Sutton and Obama"

You are capable of doing your own research and determining if it's bull crap or not. It's hard to refute video, but maybe Percy Sutton was lying. I don't think so.

[Jester]

But, here is a google link to "Percy Sutton and Obama"

You are capable of doing your own research and determining if it's bull crap or not. It's hard to refute video, but maybe Percy Sutton was lying. I don't think so.

The Obama camp denies this. Khalid al-Mansour denies this. The Sutton family has retracted the statement. And it hasn't been corroborated by any other piece of information. I don't mean to be ageist, but the man was 88 years old at the time, and died the following year - he was not in good health. It appears, on the weight of the evidence, that he was confused.

If you want to avoid conversations that *both* do not require research, *and* are polite and civil, then you'll have to steer clear of right wing conspiracies. At least, you will if I'm in the room.

-Jester

[Quark]

Jester beat me to the only credible link I could find. It took a bit of time because I was stuck in a mire of sites like "American Thinker", which is one of those amazing sites that promotes the birther theories. Hell, one of their fresh articles talks about how the "mainstream media" is defining Santorum because he's a "virtual unknown".

Virtual Unknown! The guy so repulsive Dan Savage created a meaning for his name. The guy we kicked out of our state in an 18 point margin as an incumbent!

[DeeBye]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting my tinfoil hat ready.

I really can't wait for the rest of this Republican showdown. They seem to a really good job of making each other look very foolish.

After a Republican candidate is chosen, does he have to debate Obama?

[eppie]

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest. I'm pretty much done with having conversations and needing to back up opinions with hours of detailed research. I'd like to engage in polite, friendly, conversation, and not in a war of words, recriminations, and accusations of intent. Ok?

What I don't understand about this particular conspiracy theory is what Obama has done to make people think he would somehow be some kind of muslim extremist? I mean this guy has his army stationed in Muslim countries where it kills people.
And that the countries that were invaded by the US would after the US would leave become muslim extremist countries was known from the beginning and so GW Bush' mistake.
Further he is a practicing christian (like anyone who wants a shot at the US presidency).....I don't really get this.
Of course even if there are some reasons I would still not believe the theory.

[kandrathe]

It appears, on the weight of the evidence, that he was confused.

That is a plausible explanation. In my experience, senile and confused people aren't as eloquent as he was in that interview. They usually mutter nonsense, and talk endlessly about their ailments.

An easy way to know would be for them to authorize Harvard to release the letters of recommendation. Did Percy Sutton send a letter to Harvard recommending Barack Obama?

He clearly said, what I think he said. I'm not desiring to get into a battle of specifics about this point. I don't really care about it. I'm illustrating that this is just an example of "hands off" journalism. It would be easy enough for an investigative reporter to discover the truth one way or another.

Jester beat me to the only credible link I could find.

So, in other words, it is an example of a notable guy saying something profoundly noteable, and having no one look into it at all. It's easily dismissed as dementia.

[kandrathe]

I don't really get this.

Were there really a connection, it would be as "interesting" as the theory that the Bush's are connected and beholden to the Saudi's. It doesn't mean Bush is a secret muslim. I would take it to mean there are more geopolitical implications regarding who funds and influences political power around the world.

But, in an odd twist, Alwaleed bin Talal owns about 5% of NewsCorp (the parent of Fox).

[FireIceTalon]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting my tinfoil hat ready.

I really can't wait for the rest of this Republican showdown. They seem to a really good job of making each other look very foolish.

After a Republican candidate is chosen, does he have to debate Obama?

They make each other look foolish because they are their own worst enemy, they make themselves look foolish every time they open their mouths (be it Herman Cain with his 999 tax plan, Gingrich saying black kids should be janitors at their school so they learn good work ethics, Mitt Romney saying he doesnt care about poor people, or Michelle Bachman's inept knowledge of U.S. History), so it becomes easy for the other guy to use that and run with it.

Yes, the Republican candidate will have to debate Obama, and while I'm not an Obama fan by any means and consider the American Left as big of a joke as the rightwing, he will wipe the floor with any of these ignorant cowboys in a debate, because he is intellectually superior to them, as well as just being all-around smarter in general. I still remember the McCain-Obama debate from 2008, it was pretty humiliating to watch if you were a McCain fan....Obama completely destroyed him.

[Jester]

An easy way to know would be for them to authorize Harvard to release the letters of recommendation. Did Percy Sutton send a letter to Harvard recommending Barack Obama?

Those are sealed. You can't FOIA a private institution for someone's private records. Given the nature of letters of recommendation, I'm not even sure Obama could request those.

Regardless, everyone involved has denied this, including Sutton's family. There is nothing else that even suggests that this transpired, except for that one interview with an elderly man in ill health. There is nothing here of interest for an investigative journalist - the story is a complete non-starter. It appears Politico did try following up on it. They got nowhere, because there doesn't seem to be any story here. What do you want them to do?

He clearly said, what I think he said. I'm not desiring to get into a battle of specifics about this point. I don't really care about it. I'm illustrating that this is just an example of "hands off" journalism. It would be easy enough for an investigative reporter to discover the truth one way or another.

Sorry, Kandrathe. "I'm just sayin'" is weaksauce. If you're "just sayin'" that the sky is blue, nobody cares. But when you're "just sayin'" that Obama has a dark past filled with shady people that journalists haven't looked in to, then you're going to need to find way more credible evidence than that. Nodding in the direction of Glenn Beck-ish conspiracy theories and then claiming neutrality is not going to cut it.

I don't think Journalism is even slightly hands-off, when it comes to this kind of thing. I think that partisans, mostly on the right, seize upon small indications. Then they take them out of context. Then they blow them wildly out of proportion. Then they scream "press conspiracy" and ask stupid questions like "Why has the mainstream media not investigated this!?!?" It's not a search for the facts. It's classic conspiracy theory nonsense.

-Jester

[Quark]

So, in other words, it is an example of a notable guy saying something profoundly noteable, and having no one look into it at all. It's easily dismissed as dementia.

His own family disowned the comment when people started looking into it, what the hell do you want? Man, I was more on calling you a concern troll than I even imagined.

[shoju]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting my tinfoil hat ready.

I really can't wait for the rest of this Republican showdown. They seem to a really good job of making each other look very foolish.

After a Republican candidate is chosen, does he have to debate Obama?

They make each other look foolish because they are their own worst enemy, they make themselves look foolish every time they open their mouths (be it Herman Cain with his 999 tax plan, Gingrich saying black kids should be janitors at their school so they learn good work ethics, Mitt Romney saying he doesnt care about poor people, or Michelle Bachman's inept knowledge of U.S. History), so it becomes easy for the other guy to use that and run with it.

Yes, the Republican candidate will have to debate Obama, and while I'm not an Obama fan by any means and consider the American Left as big of a joke as the rightwing, he will wipe the floor with any of these ignorant cowboys in a debate, because he is intellectually superior to them, as well as just being all-around smarter in general. I still remember the McCain-Obama debate from 2008, it was pretty humiliating to watch if you were a McCain fan....Obama completely destroyed him.

Normally, I don't find many things you and I would agree on FireIceTalon, but I have say the part of your post that I bolded is definitely something we agree on. You can say what you want about Obama, and his politics, and his connections, but make no mistake about it. He is an incredibly smart man, who has a gift for public speaking, and a keen eye for being strategic in a debate.

I will probably watch the presidential debate from the safety of my own home. Last time I watched them with my father, who was furious with how Obama destroyed McCain.

[eppie]

Were there really a connection, it would be as "interesting" as the theory that the Bush's are connected and beholden to the Saudi's. It doesn't mean Bush is a secret muslim.

No but it means he* is big friends with influencial people in one of te most extremist muslim countries, that is the biggest sponsor of global terrorism. It means that all those 200 milion americans that supported him because they liked how he was goign to teach 'those muslims a lesson' have been lied to. Bush didn't care about muslims or even terrorists but just about money (rebuilding and oil distribution contracts for his friends while using tax payers money (and more) to pay for the war).
And you want to compare this to Obama how exactly?
Even though I disagree with you on most things I always consider you a smart guy but this nonsense is costing you points.

Again this is one of the reasons we europeans are so interested in US politics and so worried about it. You have a population that let's a group of people get away with spending 100s of billions of tax payer dollars and at the same time using that money to secure very lucrative contracts for their own companies. And then after this biggest thieve in the history of the US is gone and a black guy becomes president the people are getting ready with their pitch forks.

You understand that we don't have much reason to trust the US any better than say Putin Russia, or even Iran.




*and his family

[kandrathe]

No but it means he* is big friends with influencial people in one of te most extremist muslim countries, that is the biggest sponsor of global terrorism.

You mean Saudi Arabia? The place where we have sold them the best weapons technologies, and have 5 air bases to stage operations throughout the middle east?

It means that all those 200 milion americans that supported him because they liked how he was goign to teach 'those muslims a lesson' have been lied to.

Lying to the constituency is not new to American politics.

And you want to compare this to Obama how exactly?

Rewind. Hypothetically speaking... Meaning, we are not talking about rendered facts here. IF it were true that Obama was connected to the advisor to Alwaleed bin Talal, it would mean he had in his past a benefactor from the Saudi Royal Family. One of the richest men in the world. Now, based on his *actions* it is obvious he is not in their pocket, anymore than he is in Warren Buffets pocket.

Even though I disagree with you on most things I always consider you a smart guy but this nonsense is costing you points.

You are putting too much into this. I tend to beleive that Percy Sutton was not out of his mind when he said it. There is a great need for political cover for everyone to want to distance themselves from his statements. I'm a skeptic. Which is more likely, that this old guy had dementia and suddenly made up a very plausible story replete with verifiable details (a letter he wrote), or that in a moment of unchecked candor he let slip something others would rather not have well known?

Again this is one of the reasons we europeans are so interested in US politics and so worried about it. You have a population that let's a group of people get away with spending 100s of billions of tax payer dollars and at the same time using that money to secure very lucrative contracts for their own companies. And then after this biggest thieve in the history of the US is gone and a black guy becomes president the people are getting ready with their pitch forks.

He's come quite a ways to the center. Now he's proposing simplifying corporate taxes, and cutting the top rate down to 25%. It's almost.... Republican.