Do you think Rick Perry wasted his time in running for the US Presidency?

dublinman1990

Rick Perry from Texas is a very controversial and very poor character for the US Presidency IMO. I heard that he approved a bailout for Texas, which was the second largest bailout in US History even though he was against any form of a bailout.

Even though he did create jobs for the people of Texas.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0119/uspolitics.html

I thought it was an non issue for RTE to publish a full story, even though he ,with many other republicans, has no Irish links.

I thought that the start of his campaign was very odd. It was reported that he started up a prayer meeting which in turn started up his presidential campaign.

Do you think it will be odd, to have a story like that going on in Ireland?

In the new Hampshire Primary, he got only 1% in a CNN exit poll.

He is also against atheism, gay and lesbian couples, a christian nut job I heard as well. He had race issues too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t0_lCDtWr0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-2qfDNc

He also aggressively had brushed off a student who is probably a democrat who had issues with him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54YgnpovlzM

So, all in all a horrible candidate I'd feel. It would be like the era of G.W Bush all over again.

FreudianSlippers

Part of running for President in the US is not about winning. It's about brand recognition, books and speaking tours. Beyond that even, it's about your company and their profits (HKN Energy, Halliburton in the last bunch of Pres/VP).

Perry isn't going to be President, but he has won in this primary.

Amerika

Yeah, hard to believe with this guy at the helm, Texas continues to draw businesses into the state. Also last year it gained 226,000 jobs, a 2.2 percent increase - representing increases in nine of the eleven major industries sectors, including educational and health services, professional and business services, trade, transportation and utilities, leisure and hospitality, manufacturing and mining and logging.
http://www.texasahead.org/economy/tracking/index.html

We sure can’t have him duplicating those sorts of things across the rest of the country, now can we? That surely would be bad for America.

And it’s important to keep social issues at the forefront of election news, while our nation's debt continues to spiral out of control, unemployment remains at wretchedly high levels, obsessive cap and trade regulations threaten to put many companies out of business, and we continue to rely on foreign countries hostile to the US for our energy needs.

:rolleyes:

RichieC

Yes, every single great thing about the Texas economy is Perrys doing... everyone knows that :rolleyes:

Suryavarman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Part of running for President in the US is not about winning. It's about brand recognition, books and speaking tours. Beyond that even, it's about your company and their profits (HKN Energy, Halliburton in the last bunch of Pres/VP).

Perry isn't going to be President, but he has won in this primary.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Herman Cain could have a bright future on the speaking circuit. He of course has an advantage over Perry as he can actually string a sentence together

Jonny7

I want to breathe a sigh of relief but practically all the republican candidates scare the living **** out of me (Ron Paul excluded)

Do any of them actually believe in evolution? or is it blanket creationism.

They appear to have views more in common with 15th century papists than modern human beings.

val_jester

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Part of running for President in the US is not about winning. It's about brand recognition, books and speaking tours. Beyond that even, it's about your company and their profits (HKN Energy, Halliburton in the last bunch of Pres/VP).

Perry isn't going to be President, but he has won in this primary.

Yep, you just have to look at Sarah Palin for the most extreme example of that but lots of candiates do it and will continue to do it. There was an article recently in the Washington Post about the increase in price the failed candidates had started to charge for after dinner and corporate event speaking last time around.

amacachi

The campaign finance laws contribute to it as well. With Superpacs and the like they can run campaigns without much financial risk to themselves.

Manach

Jonny7 wrote: »

I want to breathe a sigh of relief but practically all the republican candidates scare the living **** out of me (Ron Paul excluded)

Do any of them actually believe in evolution? or is it blanket creationism.

They appear to have views more in common with 15th century papists than modern human beings.

Well they do seem to more tolerant to Catholicism in general than your good self.

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

Yeah, hard to believe with this guy at the helm, Texas continues to draw businesses into the state. Also last year it gained 226,000 jobs, a 2.2 percent increase - representing increases in nine of the eleven major industries sectors, including educational and health services, professional and business services, trade, transportation and utilities, leisure and hospitality, manufacturing and mining and logging.
http://www.texasahead.org/economy/tracking/index.html

We sure can’t have him duplicating those sorts of things across the rest of the country, now can we? That surely would be bad for America.

:rolleyes:

Well, it would be nearly impossible for him to do this since Texas is in a unique position and Perry has had little to do with this in reality.
It is far more complicated and complex than you realize, it is also not as great as you may think.

Just do a couple of google searches, there are some really good articles on Perry and the Texas economy.

timesnap

Carcharodon wrote: »

Well, it would be nearly impossible for him to do this since Texas is in a unique position and Perry has had little to do with this in reality.
It is far more complicated and complex than you realize, it is also not as great as you may think.

Just do a couple of google searches, there are some really good articles on Perry and the Texas economy.

First rule of the US Politics forum is never to lay down a challenge to Amerika,he will relish the fight.:)

timesnap

Suryavarman wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Herman Cain could have a bright future on the speaking circuit. He of course has an advantage over Perry as he can actually string a sentence together

And Cain can remember three points he wants to make in a debate :pac:

p.s ah people stop using the rollseyes/sarcasm smiley,it's politics and without opposing points of view it would not be

jackiebaron

RichieC wrote: »

Yes, every single great thing about the Texas economy is Perrys doing... everyone knows that :rolleyes:

I believe Texas has the highest rate of illiteracy in the country. Way to go Perry :pac:

Jonny7

Manach wrote: »

Well they do seem to more tolerant to Catholicism in general than your good self.

As tolerant as they are towards homosexuality?

Their views on the world are staggeringly backwards (I am referring to at least 4 of the candidates here).

Amerika

amacachi wrote: »

The campaign finance laws contribute to it as well. With Superpacs and the like they can run campaigns without much financial risk to themselves.

By "the like" do you mean labor unions?

Carcharodon wrote: »

Just do a couple of google searches, there are some really good articles on Perry and the Texas economy.

Please point me in the right direction. Although Texas’ situation might not be ideal, it sure as hell looks a lot better than where just about all the other 56 states (;)) are currently at.

timesnap wrote: »

First rule of the US Politics forum is never to lay down a challenge to Amerika,he will relish the fight.

LOL “Fight” isn’t the right word, as fight usually means there is a winner and loser. And I don’t see anyone here changing their minds because of what someone else posts (especially my posts ). My goals are merely to provide other ideas and additional information to those who seeming don’t go beyond HufPo, Salon, The New York Times editorial page, and MSNBC prime time programming to get their political information.

RichieC wrote: »

Yes, every single great thing about the Texas economy is Perrys doing... everyone knows that :rolleyes:

jackiebaron wrote: »

I believe Texas has the highest rate of illiteracy in the country. Way to go Perry :pac:

Now let me get this straight... seems anything good having to do with Texas has nothing to do with Perry’s influence and guidance (who has been Governor of Texas since 2000), but anything bad with Texas is Perry’s fault (the evil reincarnation of George W Bush). Man you guys make my head hurt at times.

(all postings are just opinions)

amacachi

Amerika wrote: »

By "the like" do you mean labor unions?

They can pay into Superpacs or through other legal shells can't they? As well as big corporations and private individuals.

Amerika

amacachi wrote: »

They can pay into Superpacs or through other legal shells can't they? As well as big corporations and private individuals.

Labor Unions don't need Superpacs or other legal shells. They do as they wish independently. They just pretend they are "representing" the many members of their labor unions (I was in a labor union for 8 years, so I know how they operate). Big corporations and private individuals are limited by law to the amount they can donate directly to a candidate.

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

By "the like" do you mean labor unions?


Please point me in the right direction. Although Texas’ situation might not be ideal, it sure as hell looks a lot better than where just about all the other 56 states (;)) are currently at.

[/I][/SIZE]

You should a search box on the top right hand corner of your screen.
I don't really have the energy or motivation to argue something I know to be more factual and in line with reality than your view of Texas as being some kind of utopia.

Oh fine....

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/07/ten-reasons-why-the-texas-economy-is-growing-that-have-nothing-to-do-with-rick-perry/

http://www.mywesttexas.com/editors_picks/article_89cf65de-b7d7-11e0-831f-001cc4c002e0.html

http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-10-05/news/rick-perry-texas-fantasy/

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/17/139688463/texas-economy-growing-long-before-gov-rick-perry

I have read more accredited articles but theses will have to do for now.

I think Perry should be given credit for keeping the long standing policies in place that people perceive as being what makes Texas so great but I will not give him all the credit.

amacachi

Amerika wrote: »

Labor Unions don't need Superpacs or other legal shells. They do as they wish independently. They just pretend they are "representing" the many members of their labor unions (I was in a labor union for 8 years, so I know how they operate). Big corporations and private individuals are limited by law to the amount they can donate directly to a candidate.

Directly to a candidate, yes. I assume you're going to argue that donating to a SuperPAC or whatever is completely different.

Amerika

Thanks for providing the links Carcharodon. When time allows I will try and find some accredited and less biased, or agenda driven, sources to support your contentions.

And in advance... No! NPR is one of the most biased and agenda driven reporting sources I regularly listen to. If you would have heard their reporting on Marcellus Shale here in my state yesterday, you would have sworn it was conducted by the Earth Liberation Front.

Amerika

amacachi... I don't have to argue it. There are special laws and regulations regarding donations between the two, and how they can use the donations.

tim_holsters

Amerika wrote: »

Now let me get this straight... seems anything good having to do with Texas has nothing to do with Perry’s influence and guidance (who has been Governor of Texas since 2000), but anything bad with Texas is Perry’s fault (the evil reincarnation of George W Bush). Man you guys make my head hurt at times.

You can be sure the feeling is reciprocal

dublinman1990

The main reason I think that his terrible campaign derailed was due to him defending the disturbing video of the soldiers that urinated corpses in Afghanistan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi6WV6Ar65o

He said in a US T.V interview, which I had seen on Youtube last night, that the soldiers had made a 'mistake' in regarding what they did to them. He said that punishment should be due to them, However, IMO I think it is more than a slap in the wrist for them.

The main core vote for Perry are U.S. Soldiers mainly based in Texas.

He also said that Patton and Churchill would have done the same thing.

Now, there is always had to be one moron saying some undue rubbish coming out of his mouth.

He is also, as you may have heard, homophobic or anti gay.

Here is an ad for that presidential campaign which subsequently halted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V78ReJbjdxo

Amerika

Perry’s decline started in earnest when he defended in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants (the PC definition of illegal aliens) during one of the GOP debates.

matthew8

dublinman1990 wrote: »

The main reason I think that his terrible campaign derailed was due to him defending the disturbing video of the soldiers that urinated corpses in Afghanistan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi6WV6Ar65o

He said in a US T.V interview, which I had seen on Youtube last night, that the soldiers had made a 'mistake' in regarding what they did to them. He said that punishment should be due to them, However, IMO I think it is more than a slap in the wrist for them.

The main core vote for Perry are U.S. Soldiers mainly based in Texas.

He also said that Patton and Churchill would have done the same thing.

Now, there is always had to be one moron saying some undue rubbish coming out of his mouth.

He is also, as you may have heard, homophobic or anti gay.

Here is an ad for that presidential campaign which subsequently halted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V78ReJbjdxo

Let me get this straight. Perry absolutely crashed in the polls a few months ago, and you're blaming his demise on something that happened a couple of weeks ago? The core vote for Perry is absolutely not soldiers who are mainly based in Texas. There is nothing Rick Perry says or does that makes him more likeable to soldiers than the others.

diamondsny

lol, I think the the 2008 election set a new precedent in politics. Candidates will be thoroughly vetted more than ever with over a year of debates leading up to the primaries ensuring the worst of the bunch are weeded out.

RichieC

diamondsny wrote: »

lol, I think the the 2008 election set a new precedent in politics. Candidates will be thoroughly vetted more than ever with over a year of debates leading up to the primaries ensuring the worst of the bunch are weeded out.

And yet grinch and mittens are front runners...

Amerika

I dunno. Four years on, I'm still waiting on the media to vet Barack Obama.

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

I dunno. Four years on, I'm still waiting on the media to vet Barack Obama.

If you are going to imply that the 'media,' did not vet obama than can you please provide some kind of corroborative, impartial proof to support this assertion?

Preferably something based in fact and not conspiracy.

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

If you are going to imply that the 'media,' did not vet obama than can you please provide some kind of corroborative, impartial proof to support this assertion?

Preferably something based in fact and not conspiracy.

"...corroborative, impartial proof to support this assertion?" Now isn’t that rich! I could give you numerous links to support this assertion, but none of it would be impartial proof in your eyes... so why bother? Think about it... do you really believe the media will honestly come and say "Sorry folks, we failed in doing our basic job, we failed you in 2008, and continue to fail you even today!"

I have a better idea... lets look at what the media should be doing right now. Here you go...
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/01/24/15_questions_the_mainstream_media_would_ask_barack_obama_if_he_were_a_republican/page/full/

But if you wish me to do an exercise in futility I will... right after you explain to me how the media is doing their job on those 15 points in the article I provided.

Overheal

Drum up support, collect a bunch of campaign money, gladhand and kiss babies, drop out of the race, pocket the change, write a book, profit off the book, land a job at FOX news. Business as usual.

diamondsny

Overheal wrote: »

Drum up support, collect a bunch of campaign money, gladhand and kiss babies, drop out of the race, pocket the change, write a book, profit off the book, land a job at FOX news. Business as usual.

^this hahaha

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

"...corroborative, impartial proof to support this assertion?" Now isn’t that rich! I could give you numerous links to support this assertion, but none of it would be impartial proof in your eyes so why bother? Think about it... do you really believe the media will honestly come and say "Sorry folks, we failed in doing our basic job, we failed you in 2008, and continue to fail you even today!"

Not in my eyes. When something is impartial and objective there's usually a pretty strong consensus around it. For example. I would consider publications as the British Medical Journal to be fairly impartial. New Scientist is another one, though granted there are some opinion pieces in it also.

You don't get to downgrade or disregard the standards required for proving an assertion simply because it is inconvenient for you.

What is 'the media?' The American right, in my opinion, in their ever growing role as the victim, have created a fictional entity comprising of anyone who doesn't agree with them. They call this the MSM. The 'media,' to me, seems to be made of a bunch of diverse outlets, each with slightly different agendas but all beholden to their corporate masters.

But facts are facts and when you provide clear evidence of these, that's what's required if your going to make an assertion.

I have a better idea... lets look at what the media should be doing right now. Here you go...
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/01/24/15_questions_the_mainstream_media_would_ask_barack_obama_if_he_were_a_republican/page/full/

But if you wish me to do an exercise in futility I will... right after you explain to me how the media is doing their job on those 15 points in the article I provided.

No. You don't get to shift the goalposts.

You made the assertion the onus is on you to back it up or withdraw it. I'm not going to get dragged off on a tangent defending or arguing something I didn't claim.

This is the current fox news strategy. Making vague claims that can neither be proven nor disproven. Make enough of these circumstantially to slowly build an argument, that actually has no substance. It's a house of cards.

Why should I spend my time refuting an opinion piece from yet another utterly partisan outlet? Especially when it isn't about the specific claim which we are debating? If you want a debate on those '15 points,' I suggest you start a new thread for each one, or even a general 'scandals of the obama administration,' if you wish.

But I'm not interested in legitimising lose knit conspiracy theories that seem to want to link Obama to anything and everything under the sun. This is all that Bill Ayers and Birther nonsense all over again. Oh wait, didn't you believe in that stuff too? You probably still do? Though I'll take your word for it if you tell me that isn't the case.

So to summarize: You made an assertion. Back it up with the objective standard of evidence required, or withdraw it. I'm not interested in red herrings.

P.S. I'm still waiting for you to expand on who the extremists in his base are that Obama was pandering to by delaying the Keystone Oil Pipeline decision and what exactly was extreme about their viewpoint.

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

But facts are facts and when you provide clear evidence of these, that's what's required if your going to make an assertion.
-
No. You don't get to shift the goalposts.
-
You made the assertion the onus is on you to back it up or withdraw it. I'm not going to get dragged off on a tangent defending or arguing something I didn't claim.
-
So to summarize: You made an assertion. Back it up with the objective standard of evidence required, or withdraw it. I'm not interested in red herrings.

Now let me get this straight... I posted "I dunno. Four years on, I'm still waiting on the media to vet Barack Obama."

I'm stating that I have not seen evidence that the media vetted Barack Obama properly. So therefore if I haven't seen evidence that they did, how could I provide you with sources? Your assertion makes no sence. Wouldn't it be up to you to provide proof souces that in fact they did?

But if it helps, here is a little video, from souces that you might even consider to be legit. I think most will agree the media didn't do their job regarding Obama in the 2008 election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hzMas1bVidw

P.S. I'm still waiting for you to expand on who the extremists in his base are that Obama was pandering to by delaying the Keystone Oil Pipeline decision and what exactly was extreme about their viewpoint.

Help me out here, point me in the direction that you requested this.