Cain: Costing taxpayers already

There's plenty of reason to laugh at or dislike Herman Cain...

1) Campaign adds where you're not sure if it's a joke from the Colbert Report or Daily Show...or really his own ad:



Personally, I love the cowboy ad...it's HILARIOUS

2) Cain being nothing but a bought sock puppet:



3) His complete and utter lack of foreign policy knowledge:





4) His plan to increase taxes for 84% of the citizens:



5) His lack of knowledge when it comes to basic laws:



6) Him being willing to screw the environment and people's health...completely forgetting the recent MASSIVE BP oil spill:



7) His sex scandal and blatant lying when he said he "can't remember" when asked the first time:



But EVEN if you like him, the following should kinda piss you off:

He's costing the taxpayer even before he occupies an official position.

Last I checked, you have the right to say whatever you want...so all of the points above are excusable. He's totally allowed to spew his nonsense.

But why on earth does he get a taxpayer paid secret service detail??? He's going on book tours for crying out loud and isn't even a government employee!!! And taxpayers are supposed to pay for this?? Why? What kind of stupid law is that?? He got the funds to pay for his own security detail, he wants to run, so he can foot the bill...or use money his donors pay.

And I'd think the same way for every single candidate. I don't care if the US version of Ghandi runs, making people pay for your political campaign, even if they're not supporters is wrong.

By the way, to those who don't like the Young Turks because they're on the "left". They're actually doing a good job at attacking all sides, as well as the mainstream media.



Take the above clip for example. More truth in this than the mass media are shoving down the throat of the people. Well researched

But do you not know he is the Next POTUS , he already has a SS detail, that and this make o hole lot of sense here is "this" www.youtube.com... and "that" well that should speak for it self here is "that", Cain

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


This isn't about Obama, Marxists, Communists

It's about taxpayers being forced to pay for political CANDIDATES that hold no official position. Even worse, he goes on book tours at the same time!

An like I said, it doesn't matter if it's someone on the left, right, or an independent...it's just plain wrong. You are clearly "on the right", so let me ask you: If Anthony Wiener were running, would you be also be ok with him getting a secret service detail? What if the leader of the communist party were to get one because he suddenly decides to run?

It doesn't matter who's getting it, it's wrong to force EVERYONE to pay for candidates if they don't want to.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

This isn't about Obama, Marxists, Communists

It's about taxpayers being forced to pay for political CANDIDATES that hold no official position. Even worse, he goes on book tours at the same time!

An like I said, it doesn't matter if it's someone on the left, right, or an independent...it's just plain wrong. You are clearly "on the right", so let me ask you: If Anthony Wiener were running, would you be also be ok with him getting a secret service detail? What if the leader of the communist party were to get one because he suddenly decides to run?

It doesn't matter who's getting it, it's wrong to force EVERYONE to pay for candidates if they don't want to.

I was responding to the Young Turks position that Cain came out of literally nowhere.
Even the article says that a major candidate is allowed secret service detail. Look at the cost to taxpayers of current POTUS and family, all the parties and special staff for personal stuff, trips to Paris, gourmet pizza flown in from St. Louis, etc.

Current POTUS also had a major book happening, I remember clearly Michael Savage talking about Dreams From My Father and how Bill Ayers likely ghost wrote it for him. Oh yah, that reminds me, POTUS had taxpayers pay to have his books placed in libraries around the world.

P.S. I am not for any communist leader running for Office of the President, much less a SS detail

According to federal law, if a candidate meets a "series of standards" — that includes "prominence as measured by polls" — then they have a right to free protection by the Secret Service.

gawker.com...


So apparently it's "wrong" but not illegal.

The Young Turks are just being hypocritical about all this, because current POTUS is all that and more, but they defend all POTUS actions do they not?

However, I do find his analysis of the ads funny, because I agree that Cain's ads are too out of the box.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I am not for any communist leader running for Office of the President, much less a SS detail

And that's all this thread is about. Any native citizen can potentially run for president, and that includes the leader of the communist party...and I agree with you, he shouldn't get a security detail. But neither should Cain, or any candidate for that matter.

I'll ignore your Obama rant, because it's off topic. This isn't a general spending discussion. If it were, we'd have to include defence spending, social services, and a ton of other stuff that has nothing to do with this thread. This is about taxpayers being forced to pay for candidates they might not even support.

And yeah, it's perfectly legal, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying it's a RIDICULOUS LAW!

but they [Young Turks] defend all POTUS actions do they not?

Not exactly







But again, Obama's not the subject of this thread

I understand the fury of having a candidate costing tax payers before even coming to office, but the secret service failed to protect kennedy, so cain is the real loser.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I am not for any communist leader running for Office of the President, much less a SS detail

And that's all this thread is about. Any native citizen can potentially run for president, and that includes the leader of the communist party...and I agree with you, he shouldn't get a security detail. But neither should Cain, or any candidate for that matter.

I'll ignore your Obama rant, because it's off topic. This isn't a general spending discussion. If it were, we'd have to include defence spending, social services, and a ton of other stuff that has nothing to do with this thread. This is about taxpayers being forced to pay for candidates they might not even support.

And yeah, it's perfectly legal, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying it's a RIDICULOUS LAW!

edit on 18-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

Well, there is a Communist Party listed at my local DMV. However, whenever an immigrant applies for US Citizenship, he or she must swear on oath that he or she has not been a member of any Communist organization for five years prior to the application. Why is that requirement not associated with the highest office of the land?

But why can't I compare the cost of current POTUS to taxpayers? After all, he was elected on the very premise that he would stop a lot of that stuff. Defense spending is different from WH parties and entertainment. Defense spending is appropriated by Congressional committees and budgets finalized as part of business. Parties at the WH is extra stuff that just happens. Maybe there are spending limits, I don't know. But if it's "wrong" for a candidate being given death threats, why isn't it "wrong" for an elected POTUS to overspend outrageously?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Why is that requirement not associated with the highest office of the land?

Don't know if it is or isn't...the communists were just an example, I could have just as well used Nazis, or some group who believe abortion doctors should die, or whatever interest group you can think of.

And "why?" is a question people should ask a lot more. Like, why has congress outlawed insider trading for everyone...except for themselves? Or why are corporations now suddenly people? Tons of "why" questions should be asked

reply to post by MrXYZ


And it's not any "native" citizen, but any "Natural Born Citizen". Just thought I would clarify that. Last time I checked, people in anti abortion groups are not disallowed as potential candidates. Perhaps you meant to say that anarchists are allowed to run for Office. I suppose, in the end, anyone can "run" for the Office of President, but not anyone qualifies.
I totally agree with you about Congress exempting themselves from Insider Trading laws. Oh and thanks for the YouTube on Turks on the homeowner fiasco.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


The problem is, people have been pushed so much into the whole left vs right crap, they now focus on pure left vs right nonsense and individual politicians...instead of focusing on the ISSUES.

Take that congress insider trading or Cain getting taxpayer funds before even being elected...sure, there's a few threads, but not one is longer than 2 pages. Now go check out how long Wiener's Twitter pic thread is!!! I mean, are people serious? Sure, sending your **** over Twitter while being in office is beyond stupid, but in the grander scheme of things, it doesn't really affect people. Insider trading and misallocation of taxpayer funds on the other hand DOES affect the people a lot more.

Politics are like gladiator games, where the gladiators are politicians. They serve to entertain and distract the dumb masses, but don't really have any power. They are controlled by a select few, who use them as a mere distraction.

And that's why you get all those "Obama vs. XYZ" threads, or threads focusing on single politicians instead of the actual issues. As if people only care about the wrapping, and not the content anymore.