or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy - Page 4

post #121 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Yeah, but in YOUR version Greedo shot first. You're not a real Star Wars fan. You tell him, Frank!

The guy who approves the Star Wars Canon says that Greedo shot first. It's his universe.

You fight that by becoming a Star Trek fan, not by arguing the point incessantly on message boards.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #122 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Nah, I just believe voting for more government is against my own self-interest. And a vote for Newt Romney is just as much a vote for more government as a vote for Obama.

So, you see, Obama is no more or less palatable than Newt Romney to me right now. They both make me gag.

I've already stated under what circumstances I'd look at Romney again. But nothing could make me vote for Newt.

You're welcome to vote your interests and beliefs. The rest of the populace will as well. I reminded of a line from one of my favorite Alan Parker film "Fame." Bruno complains about having to consider the other musicians or the ear of his audience to the teacher and declares he can do it all himself using technology. The teacher stares at him and declares that isn't music, it is masturbation. The point isn't to offend. It is merely to show that no one operates in a vacuum.

Quote:
Ron Paul would wipe the floor with Obama. The mainstream media knows it and that's why they've been trying to ignore him.

That simply isn't true. He hasn't wiped the floor with anyone in the Republican debates so why would he do so with a complicit media and Obama? He's ignorable because he can be ignored. I'm sorry but that is also the issue I have with Romney. Explaining yourself simply isn't enough. The media will take things like oh, a bet of a joke and spin it into an entire worldview complete with narrative their talking heads provide. Paul waits, his turn, answers the question and then goes back and that's it. He'll explain but he doesn't challenge.

Quote:
Newt Romney would be spending too much time trying to explain his record and positions over the years and enduring relentless attacks from the media.

Newt was clearly the center of almost all attacks during the last debate and had no problem keeping cool and rebutting them. He knows his own record very well and gladly provides context as we all saw. He isn't trying to be a blank slate or empty book to hide an agenda and as such, he will gladly reveal what he supported and why he supported it. He hit the single payer mandate during the last debate, gave the history and declared how in retrospect, it wouldn't have worked out but it was put forward to help fend off Hillarycare.

Quote:
With 2 flip-flopper Big Government crony capitalist shills to chose from and the media on Obama's side, they'll likely manage to put enough spin on things to persuade enough people to reelect Obama.

Wrong. This is the same media that declares that cuts in the rate of growth are the same thing as killing Grandma and that is precisely why Paul won't touch on the areas that need the biggest reform. That said, big changes are easy to make sound scary.

Quote:
They've got nothing on Ron Paul. Consistent in his political positions for 30 years, they can't attack him on his record. A family man married for over 50 years, they can't attack him on his personal life. No distractions. Obama would have to compete with him on the issues, in which case Obama is a one-term president.

I'll let you dig into it for yourself but Paul has some newsletters from the 80's that I'm certain the media will love to dig into and use against him.

Quote:
Ron Paul gives Republicans the best chance to win.

Paul doesn't have a proven record of making change occur. His ideas will be easy to portray as too extreme and he isn't forceful enough in challenging the media narrative to end up on offense instead of merely defending the ideas. Paul helps bring about a bit of curiosity for his views which is what Perry mentioned in the last debate and thanked him for as well. That's about all he is with regard to effectiveness. The best idea doesn't exist in a vacuum. It needs 50+1 or else it is useless.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #123 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'll let you dig into it for yourself but Paul has some newsletters from the 80's that I'm certain the media will love to dig into and use against him.

I'm aware of that issue. It's been raised in the past and Ron Paul has addressed it. He will do so again if it's raised again. And really, it's a non-issue and an obvious attempt at distraction.

Quote:
Paul doesn't have a proven record of making change occur. His ideas will be easy to portray as too extreme and he isn't forceful enough in challenging the media narrative to end up on offense instead of merely defending the ideas. Paul helps bring about a bit of curiosity for his views which is what Perry mentioned in the last debate and thanked him for as well. That's about all he is with regard to effectiveness. The best idea doesn't exist in a vacuum. It needs 50+1 or else it is useless.

So...his ideas are too extreme, yet you call him out for not wanting to completely blow up Social Security from day one in office? I'm trying to figure out how you arrive at these conclusions.

Good ideas need no defense. They speak for themselves. Ron Paul is proving that. He's an unassuming man, certainly not known for his charisma or dashing good looks. Not the most eloquent public speaker. Yet here he is. He's on the national stage debating millionaires and career politicians who have personally profited and prospered from a corrupt and failing system. And, slowly but surely, he's emerged as a top contender while the Perrys and Cains and Santorums fade back into irrelevance.

People are starting to realize that more freedom might not be such a bad thing.

You want a president who can make snarky remarks to media pundits. That's fine.

I want a president with a proven record of defending the Constitution every single time - even when it meant voting or speaking out alone.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #124 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

The guy who approves the Star Wars Canon says that Greedo shot first. It's his universe.

You fight that by becoming a Star Trek fan, not by arguing the point incessantly on message boards.

At the end of the day, though, it's two nerds squabbling over the details of fiction. Please, take up Jazzy's offer to debate whether Mormonism is actually Christianity in another thread. I'll get the popcorn.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #125 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I'm aware of that issue. It's been raised in the past and Ron Paul has addressed it. He will do so again if it's raised again. And really, it's a non-issue and an obvious attempt at distraction.

It isn't a non-issue. Times change and sometimes age is a detriment when it comes to what is socially acceptable and not acceptable with regard to language use or how certain ideas, even if they are right or good, are expressed.

Quote:
So...his ideas are too extreme, yet you call him out for not wanting to completely blow up Social Security from day one in office? I'm trying to figure out how you arrive at these conclusions.

You can't be inconsistent or hypocritical with an idea. This is especially true when the premise for why the idea is better is because the competing ideas come from a bunch of hypocrits and inconsistent people. That is your point with Newt and Romney right? They will sell out ideas or apply them a half-way or you can't tell where they stand since they dont' seem to have a firm base of convictions from where all their ideas arrive.

There is no firm base of conviction within Libertarianism to justify continuing Social Security. You can't say that it is a political concession and then complain the other guys are full of political concessions.

Quote:
Good ideas need no defense. They speak for themselves.

Good ideas absolutely need defense. They may drive action but the action does need to occur. One of those actions is defending them. Our Constitution is a good idea. The lack of defense for that good idea has had bad outcomes.

Quote:
Ron Paul is proving that. He's an unassuming man, certainly not known for his charisma or dashing good looks. Not the most eloquent public speaker. Yet here he is. He's on the national stage debating millionaires and career politicians who have personally profited and prospered from a corrupt and failing system. And, slowly but surely, he's emerged as a top contender while the Perrys and Cains and Santorums fade back into irrelevance.

First almost anyone can survive at this stage of the game if they have any sort of reasonable profile. There are a half dozen candidates that have no chance and are still in there. They will survive until the first votes and then bail due to lack of money. That was true of the Democratic primaries as well. We are still at the stage where last time, Biden was still a candidate. That all changes in January.

Quote:
People are starting to realize that more freedom might not be such a bad thing.

Yes but many consider freedom from want or worry to be the freedom they are espousing. That isn't the same of course yet that is what the occupy movement wants.

Quote:
You want a president who can make snarky remarks to media pundits. That's fine.

Defending an idea isn't just about a snarky remark. Snarky is all we get from the left with their putdowns here in PO. The baseline assuption of being right is that which they feel they never have to defend. Newt engages on a level much more than being snarky. He understands the arguments and assumptions. The reason that the remark, which yes may have been snarky, hit Romney so bad when Newt said he wasn't a career politician because he couldn't get elected hit because it was true. Romney's been running for various offices since at least 1994. The video clip I showed where he was slapping MSNBC around wasn't snarky but pounded away the assumption that Palin's record was light while Obama's was somehow not. Asked to defend it, the news reporter didn't even try. There was no defense for it. I don't want a candidate who will try to explain how Palin's record is okay and not that light.

I want the candidate who destroys the premise that the media gets to determine such things and apply them selectively. I also want the candidate that doesn't just say that Libertarianism is why an idea is good or even because the Constitution or Founders is why it is good. I want to them to be able to objectively show both logically and historically how it will succeed and other ideas will fail. Newt does that.

Quote:
I want a president with a proven record of defending the Constitution every single time - even when it meant voting or speaking out alone.

Anyone who supports the continuation of Social Security is in no form or fashion defending the Constitution every single time. That is the point of bringing this up with you. Paul doesn't attack Social Security because it is a political concession as is his being registered and working within the Republican Party. When SDW or myself ask you to consider your general election vote, we ask you to consider the same concessions. They are politlical reality. You can't declare Paul doesn't subscribe to such things when it is clear he does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

At the end of the day, though, it's two nerds squabbling over the details of fiction. Please, take up Jazzy's offer to debate whether Mormonism is actually Christianity in another thread. I'll get the popcorn.

Yes, these nerd fights are very different than watching nerds like yourself argue for their religion of global warming or scientific socialism.

BTW, what is the science behind theft and redistribution of resources again? Nature declares the fittest survive and the less fit die. You declare the fittest should spend their days caring for and giving to the unfit. Your religion kills more than any other.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #126 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You can't be inconsistent or hypocritical with an idea. This is especially true when the premise for why the idea is better is because the competing ideas come from a bunch of hypocrits and inconsistent people. That is your point with Newt and Romney right? They will sell out ideas or apply them a half-way or you can't tell where they stand since they dont' seem to have a firm base of convictions from where all their ideas arrive.

There is no firm base of conviction within Libertarianism to justify continuing Social Security. You can't say that it is a political concession and then complain the other guys are full of political concessions.

Ron Paul has never claimed he is a purist libertarian, nor have I. He puts earmarks in bills that he intends to vote "no" for, knowing they will pass anyway. That's certainly not very libertarian of him, but it has ensured the people he represents do get some of their own tax money back. And making a political concession or compromise is very different from ignoring or completely disregarding one's principles. Is Ron Paul's position on Social Security purist libertarian? No. Does he have to explain himself on the subject? No. He's been clear about it for 30 years.

Contrast that with Newt Romney. Or is it Mitt Gingrich? We're still trying to figure out exactly what they want to do about healthcare because their past positions and records are all over the map. And their positions on Social Security are to the left of Ron Paul's.

Quote:
I want the candidate who destroys the premise that the media gets to determine such things and apply them selectively. I also want the candidate that doesn't just say that Libertarianism is why an idea is good or even because the Constitution or Founders is why it is good. I want to them to be able to objectively show both logically and historically how it will succeed and other ideas will fail. Newt does that.

Ron Paul does that better, when given the chance, and without coming across as a badger with indigestion.

Quote:
Anyone who supports the continuation of Social Security is in no form or fashion defending the Constitution every single time. That is the point of bringing this up with you. Paul doesn't attack Social Security because it is a political concession as is his being registered and working within the Republican Party. When SDW or myself ask you to consider your general election vote, we ask you to consider the same concessions. They are politlical reality. You can't declare Paul doesn't subscribe to such things when it is clear he does.

Again, political concessions are very different from disregarded principles. Romney/Gingrich have established track records of completely flip-flopping on the issues and disregarding principles.

Whether you agree with everything he's done or not, Ron Paul's record speaks for itself and he really doesn't have a whole lot to explain. It's there for everyone to see and he doesn't have to spend interview after interview, debate after debate answering the same questions about his record and backpedaling and spinning things. That's refreshing to me.

I know you are trying to shatter the mental image you believe I have of Ron Paul by pointing out to me that he is imperfect and has done some things that are not 100% consistent with libertarianism or the Constitution. What you don't realize is that I am willing to overlook Ron Paul's flaws because I believe in his message of limited government, non-intervention, and sound money and as a whole, his record backs up his message.

I've already stated under what circumstances I would look at Romney again. But that would require him to depart from several of his positions and change his message. I would be willing to overlook Romney's flaws if I believed in his message.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #127 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

So...we must vote for your preferred flavor Big Government so that the other flavor of Big Government doesn't win. That makes perfect sense. Glad to know you are in favor of Big Government, though. That helps me understand your perspective.

Dude, don't start with the strawmen and disingenuous posts. You're better than that. You know full well I support many cuts that Ron Paul proposes, and lean libertarian in general.

Quote:

If I wanted big government, I'd vote for Newt Romney or Obama. I don't want big government, therefore I plan to vote for someone else. Why is this difficult for you to understand?

A VOTE FOR ROMNEY/GINGRICH/OBAMA IS A VOTE FOR BIG GOVERNMENT.

Go ahead. Refute it.


And a vote for Ron Paul as a third party candidate is a vote for bigger government--and a shitty leader to boot.


Quote:
Originally Posted by talksense101 View Post

Please. Are you that scared that the republicans might lose? In fact, nothing beats a house that is tied. It will force the two major parties to deal with one other in a more constructive way or face re-election. Do coalitions exist in the US political system? It would be nice if either party was forced to form a coalition with Paul to run the government.

I care that Obama loses....I care that someone better is elected. In our system, "the house" doesn't elect the President...there are no formal coalitions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

SDW, he's going to do what he's going to do. People are allowed to choose against their own self-interest. A third party candidate on the right helps Obama. It's early though. Clearly risking Obama is still a palatable choice for him. Let it rest for a bit and let's see if after another 8-9 months of everybody on the right being called a greedy, global hating, racist, sexist, need to be shot, occupied and harmed Nazi and if that doesn't alter his views a bit.

I don't think it is...that's the thing. Someone that is as strong a Paul supporter as he is has got to be absolutely disgusted with Obama. I'm not sure if he just actually thinks that Paul can win as a third party, or if he's still holding out that Paul wins the nomination, or what. I still wonder if he'd actually pull the level for Paul knowing that it would only help Obama win.

Quote:

It's clear Obama cannot run on his record. So whoever he runs against and whoever is willing to vote for that person is going to have to be labeled as pretty much evil incarnate by both the Obama campaign and the media. It's easy to say one thing right now when the campaign for general election hasn't begun yet.

I think it's much easier to portray The Gingrich that way.

Quote:

He wouldn't have to do it all the time if the media weren't so completely off the sidelines and basically engaging in a full-court press for Obama. I mean watching that last debate and seeing George "I worked for Clinton, it's just sex and a personal matter that in no way shapes professionalism" Stephanopoulos ask the candidates about marriage and fidelity just was shocking. It shows the Democrats have no shame. They'll put on the klan hats and burn the crosses themselves and then turn around and blame the Republicans. I mean many members of the media are just former Democratic staffers or in the case of the Clinton's their kiddo just works for the media.

The media for better or worse in no different than the DNC. Any candidate that is going to win has to realize that and treat them accordingly. They'll do crazy stuff like write an article asking if McCain is eligible to run since he was born in the American controlled Panama Canal and then turn around and call anyone who applies the same question to Obama a racist. I have no doubt with Romney as an example they'll go after him and his past money associations while Tony Rezko is sitting in a cell after having basically gifted land to Obama for his primary home among other dealings.

The media needs to be called out and put on their heels at a minimum and Newt can do that. We need someone who can take the pretentions in those questions and expose them and the agenda behind them.

I don't disagree that the media is shameless, and needs to be called out. But the candidate cannot constantly do that, or he just looks combative or as if he's dodging questions. It will be entertaining, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Nah, I just believe voting for more government is against my own self-interest. And a vote for Newt Romney is just as much a vote for more government as a vote for Obama.

That is false. Neither Romney nor Gingrich supports the same level of government that Obama does...not even close.

Quote:

So, you see, Obama is no more or less palatable than Newt Romney to me right now. They both make me gag.

I don't think you're being honest with yourself. Both are far better than Obama in a variety of areas. If nothing else, both would represent America as Head of State with much greater success. Both favor less government than Obama. Both oppose the kind of Keynesian-Porkulus Obama supports. Both oppose higher taxes, which Obama favors.

Quote:

I've already stated under what circumstances I'd look at Romney again. But nothing could make me vote for Newt

I find it hard to believe that you'd rather have Obama. I really do.

Quote:

Ron Paul would wipe the floor with Obama. The mainstream media knows it and that's why they've been trying to ignore him.

I don't know about that. You mean in a debate? He can be effective, but can also come off as the crazy uncle sometimes.

Quote:

Newt Romney would be spending too much time trying to explain his record and positions over the years and enduring relentless attacks from the media. With 2 flip-flopper Big Government crony capitalist shills to chose from and the media on Obama's side, they'll likely manage to put enough spin on things to persuade enough people to reelect Obama.

They've got nothing on Ron Paul. Consistent in his political positions for 30 years, they can't attack him on his record. A family man married for over 50 years, they can't attack him on his personal life. No distractions. Obama would have to compete with him on the issues, in which case Obama is a one-term president.

Ron Paul gives Republicans the best chance to win.

Those are actually very decent points. The problem is that he has to win the nomination for them to be valid. And it doesn't look like he has a chance at that right now.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #128 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Ron Paul has never claimed he is a purist libertarian, nor have I. He puts earmarks in bills that he intends to vote "no" for, knowing they will pass anyway. That's certainly not very libertarian of him, but it has ensured the people he represents do get some of their own tax money back. And making a political concession or compromise is very different from ignoring or completely disregarding one's principles. Is Ron Paul's position on Social Security purist libertarian? No. Does he have to explain himself on the subject? No. He's been clear about it for 30 years.

I'm sorry but we are going to have to disagree here. Basically what you are doing is giving Paul the benefit of the doubt given the context of the surrounding circumstances and the fact that he has to work within a system that he cannot unilaterally control or change. That is exactly all I have said to do with the other candidates.

Also with regard to Social Security, he has called it a ponzi scheme, slavery and unconstitutional. At least two of those three have my complete agreement but I'm not the guy saying keep it as it is and let the young take all the hits. He is saying that.

Quote:
Contrast that with Newt Romney. Or is it Mitt Gingrich? We're still trying to figure out exactly what they want to do about healthcare because their past positions and records are all over the map. And their positions on Social Security are to the left of Ron Paul's.

Sorry but their positions are rather clear and given the same context you note for Paul, make perfect sense. Even to this day health care is a vexing issue because we won't let people forgo care and die. That part is simply true so someone ends up on the hook for the cost. It seems like a few times a year we get a story about some rural house where the owner refused the fire fee and they let it burn to the ground but protect the surrounding structures from the danger who have paid the fee. The point is that we can barely convince people to allow that with structures and so it will never be allowed with health care. If someone decides to have no health care and wrecks their motorcycle while needing $100,000 worth of care, as a society we won't let them forgo it. Newt is honest and broad in saying that even if you require a bond it is like a mandate. He's clarified his position but much like you note with Paul and earmarks, Newt wasn't just operating in a vacuum. He had to fight Hillarycare in the early 90's and unlike the present time he had to get it turned back.

If he helped craft the alternative that deflated the Democratic proposal and then didn't go forward itself, that is a political win just like how you note Paul gets some money back to his own constituents. You understand that sausage making can be ugly then complain that the people in charge of making sausage look worse off since they participated.

Quote:
Ron Paul does that better, when given the chance, and without coming across as a badger with indigestion.

That's not helpful and it doesn't reflect reality. You don't see Republicans or Libertarians clamoring for ever more Paul debating. You see plenty who like you, are impressed with his passion, positions and consistency. I've never read much of anyone declaring he gives homerun speeches or debates. Certainly those two things wouldn't make him a better legislature but those might make someone a better president.

Quote:
Again, political concessions are very different from disregarded principles. Romney/Gingrich have established track records of completely flip-flopping on the issues and disregarding principles.

I'm certainly not a Romney fan but his explanation about health care when he was governor makes perfectr sense to me. His state wanted it. It is a state level concern. He gave the state a solution. If they don't like it they can repeal it. To say he would do the same at the Federal level isn't true and ignores an understanding of Constitutional roles and levels. If he can explain them, then he understands them and if there's something that makes you think his claims are a lie then post it.

Quote:
Whether you agree with everything he's done or not, Ron Paul's record speaks for itself and he really doesn't have a whole lot to explain. It's there for everyone to see and he doesn't have to spend interview after interview, debate after debate answering the same questions about his record and backpedaling and spinning things. That's refreshing to me.

You don't have to explain much when you haven't altered, influenced or changed much of anything. I could have spoken for the last 30 years about how important it is to establish a colony of Venus. I could be incredibly consistent about it. The reality though is that if no one has moved on it then what good did all of that do?

Newt helpd with GOPAC. Rick Santorum mentioned it in the debate. His tapes, books and lectures helped craft and recruit what became the majority party in 1994. Those people were guys like Rick who decided to enter into politics based off of what Newt taught. Ron Paul could have similar questions put to him and put him on his heels. He has no target because he hasn't moved the needle and people don't think he will. The second he does, suddenly he will be asked things like how can he oppose all hate legislation. Sure I'm in complete agreement with him on that point, but it remains, he would be questioned on it, his record on those votes, he would be on the defensive like any other politician who is in opposition to the media consensus and worldview on that legislation.

Paul can explain it. I have no doubt about that. Can Paul make the media look foolish for presuming that hate legislation is the default viewpoint of most people, that it make logical and logistical sense and likewise cite examples of when the legislation led to terrible outcomes that no one would support? No he can't and doesn't. That is what Newt does. Paul says it is unconstitutional, isn't what the founders would have done and I've said that for 30 years. That isn't enough.

Quote:
I know you are trying to shatter the mental image you believe I have of Ron Paul by pointing out to me that he is imperfect and has done some things that are not 100% consistent with libertarianism or the Constitution. What you don't realize is that I am willing to overlook Ron Paul's flaws because I believe in his message of limited government, non-intervention, and sound money and as a whole, his record backs up his message.

I'm not trying to shatter your image of Paul at all. His message is my message as well. I assure you I'm probably in 85-90% agreement with him. The point is that the presidency isn't like any other office. It is the office that literally only has the power of influence and almost nothing more. When people scream about Obama and obstructionism, it becomes a defacto cause to not elect him because by definition, the president persuades. Clinton was so masterful a president in my opinion, even if I disagreed with what he was doing because you would see him move the opinion and the votes with his meeting, greeting, speeches, etc. I do believe Newt has that trait and I do not believe other people in the race have that trait right now even if I like their ideas or positions better. It doesn't matter if I'm in 100% percent agreeement with a candidate if they can't persuade the people and help their Congressional leaders move the votes.

Quote:
I've already stated under what circumstances I would look at Romney again. But that would require him to depart from several of his positions and change his message. I would be willing to overlook Romney's flaws if I believed in his message.

The one flaw you ought not overlook, no matter who the candidate is or the level of agreement is can they get their position or something close to it to 50+1. A president doesn't have the option of putting in a earmark for a vote knowing it will pass over their opposition. That's great for a principled congresssional representative. It won't work for President. The point again is that sausage making is a bit messy. You forgive the messiness in one case and not the others. Meanwhile we are electing a sausage king and that means I want someone who knows how to make sausage. I don't want someone who got less messy or can't convince others to make his sausage.

EDIT:

One last point, before the last debate the media was trying to hook onto a Newt comment about Palestinians. After it was addressed at the debate you heard nothing but crickets about it. The position is still controversial and certainly arguable. The point is Newt's force and explantion put the media on their asses and they don't to touch it. He was to clear and they are left arguing about stuff like not wanting to offend certain people while obscuring certain facts.

What did the media want to discuss instead, a bet. Ask yourself who makes the media scared to attack him.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #129 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Dude, don't start with the strawmen and disingenuous posts. You're better than that. You know full well I support many cuts that Ron Paul proposes, and lean libertarian in general.

Then vote for the "Smaller Government" candidate, not "Big Government B".

Quote:
And a vote for Ron Paul as a third party candidate is a vote for bigger government--and a shitty leader to boot.

Wrong. My vote does not show up in Obama's totals. Therefore it is not a vote for Obama.

Quote:
I don't think it is...that's the thing. Someone that is as strong a Paul supporter as he is has got to be absolutely disgusted with Obama. I'm not sure if he just actually thinks that Paul can win as a third party, or if he's still holding out that Paul wins the nomination, or what. I still wonder if he'd actually pull the level for Paul knowing that it would only help Obama win.

I voted for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party in 2008. Does that help answer your question?

Quote:
That is false. Neither Romney nor Gingrich supports the same level of government that Obama does...not even close.

Really? They all support the Patriot Act and erosion of civil liberties. They all support interventionist foreign policy. They all support government manipulation of interest rates and fiat currency. Am I missing something, here? Oh yeah..Obamacare...which doesn't matter much if the other issues aren't addressed.

Quote:
I don't think you're being honest with yourself. Both are far better than Obama in a variety of areas. If nothing else, both would represent America as Head of State with much greater success. Both favor less government than Obama. Both oppose the kind of Keynesian-Porkulus Obama supports. Both oppose higher taxes, which Obama favors.

Government would continue to grow under Romney and Gingrich. It may continue to grow under Paul, too. There's only so much the president can and should do, but I believe he would fight much harder against it than Newt/Mitt/Obama. His veto pen would need barrels of ink, that's for sure.

Quote:
I find it hard to believe that you'd rather have Obama. I really do.

You can rest easy. I won't vote for him. I'll vote for someone else.

Quote:
I don't know about that. You mean in a debate? He can be effective, but can also come off as the crazy uncle sometimes.

One on one against Obama? Absolutely. He'll come off as more genuine - which he is - and destroy Obama on the issues handily.

Quote:
Those are actually very decent points. The problem is that he has to win the nomination for them to be valid. And it doesn't look like he has a chance at that right now.

I'm not sure what you're looking at, but he's usually in the top three in virtually every poll that doesn't exclude him from the questions or results.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #130 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Wrong. My vote does not show up in Obama's totals. Therefore it is not a vote for Obama.

Given the nature of our electoral system, a split batshit conservative vote is in effect a vote for the mildly-conservative-but-masquerading-as-a-liberal candidate. If you have a preference between the two front-runners, you do your preference a disservice by voting for the third party. This is also why our electoral system is complete crap. We should have a ranked voting system instead in which my ballot my look like...

Green Party Candidate: 1st choice
Progressive Party Candidate: 2nd choice
Democratic Party Candidate: 3rd choice

I'll let wikipedia do the rest of the explanation:

Quote:
Instant-runoff voting (IRV), also known as preferential voting, the alternative vote and ranked choice voting, is a voting system used to elect one winner. Voters rank candidates in order of preference, and their ballots are counted as one vote for their first choice candidate. If a candidate secures a majority of votes cast, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. A new round of counting takes place, with each ballot counted as one vote for the advancing candidate who is ranked highest on that ballot. This process continues until the winning candidate receives a majority of the vote against the remaining candidates.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #131 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Given the nature of our electoral system, a split batshit conservative vote is in effect a vote for the mildly-conservative-but-masquerading-as-a-liberal candidate. If you have a preference between the two front-runners, you do your preference a disservice by voting for the third party. This is also why our electoral system is complete crap. We should have a ranked voting system instead in which my ballot my look like...

Of course, one can make the case that our current system makes EVERYONE compromise, make hard decisions and try to find a middle ground, making peace with their neighbours.

In a world where everybody listens to their own media for news, segregates to their own political party and never makes common cause with those outside their circle - we my end up with far bigger problems than we have now.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #132 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Of course, one can make the case that our current system makes EVERYONE compromise, make hard decisions and try to find a middle ground, making peace with their neighbours.

You are kidding, right? Our system makes us choose between the lesser of two evils who both reside firmly within the pockets of the corporate oligarchy. Now, the current crop of Republican candidates have pretty much gone off the deep end so the differences between them and Democrats these days is rather stark. However, there is no legitimate option for true progressives or true conservatives. Such an option should be viable without the fear of Nader handing the country to Bush for 8 horrible years.

Did you read about the system? If your first choice gets the fewest number of votes, he or she is eliminated from the running. Your vote then goes to your second choice. Jazzy could vote for Paul first and Romney second without feeling like he's throwing his vote away. We might actually break free from this bullshit two-party system which has done nothing but turn our political conversation into a pissing match between fans of rival sports teams.

Quote:
In a world where everybody listens to their own media for news, segregates to their own political party and never makes common cause with those outside their circle - we my end up with far bigger problems than we have now.

Couldn't disagree more.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #133 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You are kidding, right? Our system makes us choose between the lesser of two evils who both reside firmly within the pockets of the corporate oligarchy. Now, the current crop of Republican candidates have pretty much gone off the deep end so the differences between them and Democrats these days is rather stark. However, there is no legitimate option for true progressives or true conservatives. Such an option should be viable without the fear of Nader handing the country to Bush for 8 horrible years.

Did you read about the system? If your first choice gets the fewest number of votes, he or she is eliminated from the running. Your vote then goes to your second choice. Jazzy could vote for Paul first and Romney second without feeling like he's throwing his vote away. We might actually break free from this bullshit two-party system which has done nothing but turn our political conversation into a pissing match between fans of rival sports teams.

Couldn't disagree more.

I get your point. (And will ignore the hyperbole about the GOP.)

Trust me on this, having five parties spanning the entire spectrum (including separatists) doesn't really help matters a large part of the time. Of course I'm referencing Canada (which does still have FPTP) but European countries have gone proportional without their political systems rising from the corporate and union muck.

To be honest, the best thing to happen to Canadian politics in recently history has been the banning of corporate and union donations in the federal system. Only people vote and only people donate. I think that might have a better chance at providing the real change you seek.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #134 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Then vote for the "Smaller Government" candidate, not "Big Government B".

Wrong. As a third party candidate, you're just taking away a vote from the guy that cna actually win.

Quote:

Wrong. My vote does not show up in Obama's totals. Therefore it is not a vote for Obama.

Distinction without a difference. You are splitting the conservative vote, which helps Obama.

Quote:

I voted for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party in 2008. Does that help answer your question?

I fail to see why. Was it to feel better about yourself? Was it to be able to tell people about your strong principles and independence while you attend your annual holiday party? Because those are the only reasons one would do that. You knew he couldn't win, and voted for him anyway. The difference is this time such an action will matter.

Quote:

Really? They all support the Patriot Act and erosion of civil liberties. They all support interventionist foreign policy. They all support government manipulation of interest rates and fiat currency. Am I missing something, here? Oh yeah..Obamacare...which doesn't matter much if the other issues aren't addressed.

The Patriot Act is not going away no matter what Ron Paul does. The Fed is not going away. Regardless, they are still not "the same" as Obama.

Quote:

Government would continue to grow under Romney and Gingrich. It may continue to grow under Paul, too. There's only so much the president can and should do, but I believe he would fight much harder against it than Newt/Mitt/Obama. His veto pen would need barrels of ink, that's for sure.

You're again making the argument as if we're voting from a fast food menu. It would be nice if they would just line up and let everyone pick their favorite, but that's not how elections work. I'm not faulting you for supporting Paul...I'm faulting you for stating you'll vote for him as a third party candidate when the choice on the other side is Obama.

Quote:


You can rest easy. I won't vote for him. I'll vote for someone else.

...which means you'll be voting to reelect him.

Quote:

One on one against Obama? Absolutely. He'll come off as more genuine - which he is - and destroy Obama on the issues handily.

He will also come off a bit like the crazy old guy...at least for a part. I agree he'd crush Obama on many issues and be more genuine.

Quote:

I'm not sure what you're looking at, but he's usually in the top three in virtually every poll that doesn't exclude him from the questions or results.

I'm looking at the polls. He's not leading any poll or even generally running second. In national polls, he's a distant third and cannot even get out of single digits most times. Even in Iowa he's running a distant third. Who knows...the polls could be wrong. But they usually aren't.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-1452.html
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #135 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Wrong. As a third party candidate, you're just taking away a vote from the guy that cna actually win.

Tell that to Abraham Lincoln (a third party candidate).

Quote:
Distinction without a difference. You are splitting the conservative vote, which helps Obama.

You are splitting the conservative vote by not voting for a true conservative.

Quote:
I fail to see why. Was it to feel better about yourself? Was it to be able to tell people about your strong principles and independence while you attend your annual holiday party? Because those are the only reasons one would do that. You knew he couldn't win, and voted for him anyway. The difference is this time such an action will matter.

I've already told you my reasons, which you have apparently ignored or rejected.

Quote:
The Patriot Act is not going away no matter what Ron Paul does. The Fed is not going away. Regardless, they are still not "the same" as Obama.

They are different sides of the same statist coin.

Quote:
You're again making the argument as if we're voting from a fast food menu. It would be nice if they would just line up and let everyone pick their favorite, but that's not how elections work. I'm not faulting you for supporting Paul...I'm faulting you for stating you'll vote for him as a third party candidate when the choice on the other side is Obama.

But we do have more than two choices. You're refusing to see that.

Quote:
...which means you'll be voting to reelect him.

No, I'll be voting for the candidate of my choice.

Quote:
I'm looking at the polls. He's not leading any poll or even generally running second. In national polls, he's a distant third and cannot even get out of single digits most times. Even in Iowa he's running a distant third. Who knows...the polls could be wrong. But they usually aren't.

This poll has Ron Paul tied for second with Romney in Iowa.

This poll has Ron Paul second, ahead of Romney by 2%.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #136 of 328
Thread Starter 
And on the subject of democracy and voting in general:

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #137 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Then vote for the "Smaller Government" candidate, not "Big Government B".

Your vote didn't stop government from growing. It didn't stop a single dollar from being added to the deficit.

Quote:
Wrong. My vote does not show up in Obama's totals. Therefore it is not a vote for Obama.

Your point would stand if we all lived on islands. We don't.

Quote:
I voted for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party in 2008. Does that help answer your question?

What did that fix? Answer that question.

Quote:
Really? They all support the Patriot Act and erosion of civil liberties. They all support interventionist foreign policy. They all support government manipulation of interest rates and fiat currency. Am I missing something, here? Oh yeah..Obamacare...which doesn't matter much if the other issues aren't addressed.

No one is going to take the last 50-60 years and just stop it instantly. I really think Steve Jobs is a great model to ponder here. Even if he was the man with the right plan early on, his inability to gather people to that vision and lead them appropriately meant he was the wrong man. He had his own board and company turn against him because even if he was right about the vision, his means of achieving it was like pure poison. There are indeed other people and real world considerations out there.

Quote:
Government would continue to grow under Romney and Gingrich. It may continue to grow under Paul, too. There's only so much the president can and should do, but I believe he would fight much harder against it than Newt/Mitt/Obama. His veto pen would need barrels of ink, that's for sure.

A veto can be overcome with a two-thirds vote. If only a third of the populace endorses what he wants, then it will still be for naught. Worse still he might damage the brand. All conservatives can be labeled whatever their president happens to be. If he becomes the guy who wants to murder Grandma and has the entire Congress in opposition to him including those in his own party, then that brings the entire party down, hands the power over to someone else and then we are stuck arguing that conservative doesn't mean slave labor and grandma dying.

Quote:
You can rest easy. I won't vote for him. I'll vote for someone else.

It's pretty clear you won't vote for someone who can make a difference so in that regard your vote becomes one for the status quo. It becomes like casting a vote for unicorns.

Quote:
One on one against Obama? Absolutely. He'll come off as more genuine - which he is - and destroy Obama on the issues handily.

How does one suddenly acquire a trait they never previously had? I'm not saying Paul isn't a good guy or that he isn't effective in his current role. I'm saying that as SDW notes he at best comes off like a quirky, cranky great uncle who might peak a bit of curiosity while you ignore him. His support has hit a ceiling while he is a known variable. He ran before. He's run this time. His percentages don't improve as people evaluate him. There is currently limited support for his ideas.

Quote:
I'm not sure what you're looking at, but he's usually in the top three in virtually every poll that doesn't exclude him from the questions or results.

The highest level of support I've seen for him is 11%. Obviously most of the field doesn't have major support yet. Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman will all be gone right after the first vote. Paul can stick around because he will have some money basically due to never having quit running last time. Also 9-11% is better than margin of error support. Gingrich and Romney are pulling about 22-30% depending upon the poll and state. Top 3 with often less than ten percent just shows how much broad support the other two candidates have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Given the nature of our electoral system, a split batshit conservative vote is in effect a vote for the mildly-conservative-but-masquerading-as-a-liberal candidate. If you have a preference between the two front-runners, you do your preference a disservice by voting for the third party. This is also why our electoral system is complete crap. We should have a ranked voting system instead in which my ballot my look like...

Green Party Candidate: 1st choice
Progressive Party Candidate: 2nd choice
Democratic Party Candidate: 3rd choice

I'll let wikipedia do the rest of the explanation:

I'm sure you'll be casting your ballot for someone other than Obama for 2012 becuase you don't want to support a masquerading candidate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Of course, one can make the case that our current system makes EVERYONE compromise, make hard decisions and try to find a middle ground, making peace with their neighbours.

In a world where everybody listens to their own media for news, segregates to their own political party and never makes common cause with those outside their circle - we my end up with far bigger problems than we have now.

I'm not sure when consensus and compromise became dirty words when talking about Democracy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You are kidding, right? Our system makes us choose between the lesser of two evils who both reside firmly within the pockets of the corporate oligarchy. Now, the current crop of Republican candidates have pretty much gone off the deep end so the differences between them and Democrats these days is rather stark. However, there is no legitimate option for true progressives or true conservatives. Such an option should be viable without the fear of Nader handing the country to Bush for 8 horrible years.

Did you read about the system? If your first choice gets the fewest number of votes, he or she is eliminated from the running. Your vote then goes to your second choice. Jazzy could vote for Paul first and Romney second without feeling like he's throwing his vote away. We might actually break free from this bullshit two-party system which has done nothing but turn our political conversation into a pissing match between fans of rival sports teams.

Couldn't disagree more.

So disagree and feel free to throw your vote away. The reality is that running a national party and bringing a bunch of people together some core issues is like herding cats. It requires loads of work just to even raise awareness. The reason the type of people you endorse don't rise higher is because occupying a park bench doesn't do much nor does being a needy, whining pain in the ass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I get your point. (And will ignore the hyperbole about the GOP.)

Trust me on this, having five parties spanning the entire spectrum (including separatists) doesn't really help matters a large part of the time. Of course I'm referencing Canada (which does still have FPTP) but European countries have gone proportional without their political systems rising from the corporate and union muck.

To be honest, the best thing to happen to Canadian politics in recently history has been the banning of corporate and union donations in the federal system. Only people vote and only people donate. I think that might have a better chance at providing the real change you seek.

I actually believe we are pretty close to some significant change. Clearly the media hold on information, their attempt to manufacture consensus and their literal free megaphone are starting to be overcome by the internet and others sources. Money doesn't equate to speech as much when you've got a YouTube channel that can reach millions. We've seen dozens of elections where throwing money out there didn't alter the outcome for a bad candidate or a bad message. All money does is magnify be it good or bad.

Some new Newt news for the day.

Gingrich vs. Obama

Quote:
Political professionals sometimes speak of the mood of the electorate. This subtle force goes beyond ideology, policy and even character. The ability to read and respond to the publics mood often represents the difference between winning and losing.
The current mood of the country? Disaffection. Congresss approval rating is in the single digits. The presidents is, at 42%, dramatically lower than that of any other elected president in his third year since the dawn of polling far lower than that of the feckless, politically doomed, Carter.

The technocratic Mitt Romney has proven his appeal to Republican moderate primary voters, perhaps one-third of the party. The much larger conservative base, however, enthusiastically kept sampling insurgent contenders in search of an antidote to disaffection: a populist progressive conservative.
Populist progressive conservative is a hard combination to pull off. But it can be done. Populist means optimistic about peoples ability to govern themselves. Progressive stands for champion of the little guy against powerful insider special interests. Conservative? Fundamentally committed to free enterprise, traditional values and a robust America. Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, two Gingrich icons, did it. Gingrich, perhaps uniquely this cycle, may have threaded this very needle.

I think that does a very good job of breaking down the state of how the electorate and candidates are with regard to current positioning.

Quote:
Gingrich proposes to use government power to unleash the free market. So perverse are the incentives, so inept are government officials, that libertarian consternation at such a proposal is more than understandable. But the libertarians (whose presidential champion Gary Johnson consistently drew asterisks) are not representative of the broad electorate. Moreover, business oligarchies can (with government connivance) exist. It was an exercise in government power the breakup of AT&T that obliterated the black, corded, dial phone and paved the way for our modern, feature-rich, telecom environment. The libertarian stance that the king can do no right is but the doctrinal obverse to the monarchists adage that the king can do no wrong.

This is the prime point. You can't just declare the world is going to change. If the government has been force for negative change in many areas for a certain number of years, just declaring you are going to erase it won't work. People have to unlearn bad habits and learn good ones. They have to adapt to the new reality. The change needs to occur but also needs to be managed. Then when people aren't afraid they can more likely go along with the new and necessary change but if they are afraid, they will fight it.

Why is Newt Rising?

Quote:
The political consultants working against Gingrich seem unable to absorb facts or adapt their ideas to them. One of the biggest criticisms of Gingrich is his inability to organize staff and run a campaign. Karl Rove wrote what was supposed to be a devastating criticism of Gingrich's leadership deficiencies in the Wall Street Journal last week. Rove said, among other things, that Gingrich had failed to qualify for the ballot in both Missouri and Ohio and that the former House speaker had little or no organization in Iowa.

Rove's article would have been devastating but for one fact: it wasn't true. Gingrich has, for example, qualified in both Missouri and Ohio.

It stinks how facts keep getting in the way of spin be it neo-conservative or liberal spin.

Quote:
Another reason Gingrich isn't fading is Mitt Romney. Let's face it: Mitt Romney is the Republican version of Al Gore. Even people who are predisposed to liking him can't seem to get there. Romney is supposedly more electable than Gingrich, at least according to the Inside the Beltway crowd and the major media.

OUCH! Wow, that is a concise bite there. Al Gore, the man who has the right plan but doesn't know who he is and never seems to bring about any passion. That point hit the mark.

This part is great too!

Quote:
While Gingrich remains positive, the media eagerly await what they believe is the inevitable act of Newtonian self-destruction. They seize on anything he says that doesn't sound like something they hear around their newsrooms and try to make a feeding frenzy out of it. Yes, it could still happen. But the odds are against it because what Gingrich has been saying is what a lot of people are thinking.

When Gingrich said that school kids, especially those in poor families, could work in schools to learn the habits of reliability and earning, the media jumped on him. But people understood that Gingrich was right. Young Americans don't have the work ethic of their parents or grandparents.

Gingrich told the Occupy Whatever kiddies to take a bath and get a job. Those aren't the words of a wild man. They're what most working Americans think when they see the Occupy Whatever rabble.

When Gingrich said that the Palestinians were an "invented people," the media -- and the Palestinians -- thought the feeding frenzy could start.

On Saturday night, Romney came after Gingrich on this point. Romney said that he wouldn't make any statement like that without first consulting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Gingrich claimed the Reagan mantle and spoke about the Palestinians again in terms he equated to Reagan calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Gingrich said he'd speak the truth even if it discomfited the "timid," meaning Romney.

Even the strongest supporters of Israel among us, including me, do not want an American president who will ask Israel's permission to make a speech or decide a policy. That's what Romney pledged to do and which Gingrich -- properly -- rejected.

Better still, as the article mentions but doesn't completely examine, Gingrich gets media attention but also ends up discrediting them everytime they come after him about one of their own biases which they presume everyone else has. It's like they can't stop it. It totally exposes them and shows their agenda. They'll end up trying to defend who government can't give poor kids part time work. It blows up in their face. They end up trying to explain how people sitting in a park are making the world better. It just makes them look like biased, idiots while giving Gingrich more and more exposure.

Quote:
In two televised debates, Gingrich went after the moderator for asking "gotcha questions" and demanding that the Republicans attack each other. He alone has dared challenge the all-knowing, all-powerful media.

Thank goodness he is doing this and it take courage to do it.

Quote:
It's long past time for a Republican leader to make a speech that says pointedly that the major media aren't in the news business. They're political activists abusing their power to propel Obama to re-election, and Americans know it. They're as angry at the media as they are at Congress.

Exactly, it isn't hard to see that the larger the media influence the more blue the electorate. They are nothing but a propaganda organization.

Quote:
The major media outlets -- the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS and many more -- are populated entirely by liberals. In 2005, Washington Post editor Marie Arana said, "The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness.... If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I've been in communal gatherings at the Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democratic candidates." It's a culture, not a conspiracy.

The more the truth is told about this, the more the electorate will be willing to listen to candidate solutions.

Quote:
Americans know this and if Gingrich makes a speech that humorously criticizes the media rather than condemning or threatening them, Americans will respond enthusiastically with their votes in the primaries and, if he's nominated, in the general election.

As noted by many here, it isn't just if you have the best platform. How do you get buy-in, how do you overcome the entrenched interests, how do you get past the media who will stop at nothing to make sure you are defeated. Gingrich is far from perfect and has taken his lumps here in the past but like Steve Jobs, I believe he has swallowed that bitter medicine, learned from it and is the man for the job now.

Quote:
Gingrich can reduce the liberal media's power in the 2012 election by pointing out that, for example, the New York Times is a dysfunctional liberal family the likes of which isn't usually found outside of Hollywood. He should take on the "suits" -- the people such as NYT publisher Pinch Sulzberger and the guys who run NBC/MSNBC -- who make people such as Chris Matthews, Maureen Dowd, and their ilk prominent voices on television and in print.

Take down the talking heads, the spinmasters, those who scream their opinions at you trying to stop your thoughts and replace them with their own. They are the one percent that someone ought to rail against. They claim to have the moral high ground and that they want to control the flow of information in the information age. They are the true elites and they want a lot more than your pocket book, they want your mind.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #138 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Your vote didn't stop government from growing. It didn't stop a single dollar from being added to the deficit.

Because the result would have been the same under McCain.

Quote:
Your point would stand if we all lived on islands. We don't.

My point is valid. If everyone voted their conscience instead of out of fear or intimidation things would be different.

Quote:
What did that fix? Answer that question.

He didn't win, so it fixed nothing. Just like a vote for Obama or McCain would have done.

Quote:
No one is going to take the last 50-60 years and just stop it instantly. I really think Steve Jobs is a great model to ponder here. Even if he was the man with the right plan early on, his inability to gather people to that vision and lead them appropriately meant he was the wrong man. He had his own board and company turn against him because even if he was right about the vision, his means of achieving it was like pure poison. There are indeed other people and real world considerations out there.

I don't recall claiming Ron Paul will transform the world in to a paradise from the moment he's sworn into office.

Quote:
It's pretty clear you won't vote for someone who can make a difference so in that regard your vote becomes one for the status quo. It becomes like casting a vote for unicorns.

I won't vote for someone who will make a negative difference. A vote for Romney/Gingrich/Obama is a vote for the status quo. My vote will be cast in opposition to the status quo.

Quote:
How does one suddenly acquire a trait they never previously had? I'm not saying Paul isn't a good guy or that he isn't effective in his current role. I'm saying that as SDW notes he at best comes off like a quirky, cranky great uncle who might peak a bit of curiosity while you ignore him. His support has hit a ceiling while he is a known variable. He ran before. He's run this time. His percentages don't improve as people evaluate him. There is currently limited support for his ideas.

His ideas are being largely ignored by the mainstream media. And lets face it, the majority of voters are influenced by the mainstream media. Give him equal time and exposure to the other candidates and his popularity will soar. The fact that he is doing so well in spite of the obvious attempt to ignore him is a testament to the popularity of his message when people actually take the time to listen.

Quote:
The highest level of support I've seen for him is 11%. Obviously most of the field doesn't have major support yet. Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman will all be gone right after the first vote. Paul can stick around because he will have some money basically due to never having quit running last time. Also 9-11% is better than margin of error support. Gingrich and Romney are pulling about 22-30% depending upon the poll and state. Top 3 with often less than ten percent just shows how much broad support the other two candidates have.

Paul is consistently in the top 3. As soon as the media finishes their current love affair with Newt and starts their smear campaign against him, Paul and Romney will still be there.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #139 of 328
Why I'm looking at Newt.

Quote:
So while I hope Governor Perry can pull this out, Im not willing to bet $10,000 on it.

This leaves me between Romney and Gingrich.

The more I see of Romney the less there is to like. His much touted business experience amounts to serving a company which specialized in the financial equivalent of Arab slave raids rather than creating products and jobs. I dont see his business experience as being superior to that of Gingrich who has developed several successful companies. Romneys tenure as Massachusetts governor was not only not conservative but it was disastrous for the State GOP. When Romney took office in 2003 the Massachusetts House had a 136D/23R mix. By his last year in office that mix was 141/19. While one can argue that nominating liberal judges, supporting gay marriage, initiating carbon caps, and imposing a health insurance mandate were all mitigated by Romney I think that is booshwah but Ill stipulate it for this essay one thing that was his responsibility as governor was electing Republicans. There is no way to blame the decimation of the Massachusetts GOP on anyone else.
What were left with in Romney is a clear picture of a man with no guiding principles beyond self interest. That is a recurring theme at Bain, as Massachusetts governor, and in now two runs for the presidency. He seems by all accounts to be a pleasant guy, unless you actually refuse to genuflect in his presence as Brett Baier discovered, and good family man. Of course, if youre his dog, you better learn to like the view from the roof of his car.

I have a lot of doubts about Gingrich. He has a self destructive tendency. He has hubris by the truckload. He does not, in my estimation, build deep loyalty in his staff. Infidelity While his changes in positions, to me, are mitigated by the fact that his bread and butter since 1998 has been in being quotable and provocative. This stands in contrast to Romneys innumerable positions which were taken either while he was running for office or in the single instance in which he was actually elected to something. But still I do have concerns over what next great idea a President Gingrich may come up with. Different contexts and different causes for worry.

Beating an incumbent is always difficult and Obama looks to be the most beatable incumbent since Jimmy Carter. But we always have to keep in mind that we are defending a House majority and we are within striking distance of taking the Senate in 2012 as well as trying to take the presidency. Which, between Gingrich and Romney, will do the best job of winning seats down ballot. There is no question. Gingrich ended a half century Democrat monopoly in the House. Romney could not run for re-election in Massachusetts. Yes, Romney is not a professional politician but it is the voters not Romney that have seen to that.
In the final analysis, I think Gingrich will become a street brawler in order to win and I think Romney thinks the position is owed to him. Against Barack Obama I know who wins and in the final analysis we are in this to win

Newt will move the needle and elect more conservatives.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #140 of 328
Thread Starter 
This video makes my blood pressure rise.

And I trust Newt/Romney/Obama less than I trusted Bush because they all have histories of their actions not matching their words.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #141 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Tell that to Abraham Lincoln (a third party candidate).

Now we're comparing Ron Paul to Lincoln and comparing this election to that one. Good lord. Perspective...get some, please.

Quote:

You are splitting the conservative vote by not voting for a true conservative.

I don't make the rules and the world doesn't always work the way I would like. That means I have to choose from who is running and not pretend I live in a fantasy world were Paul can actually get elected as a third party candidate. I'd love to have a more libertarian conservative that can actually win, but that person doesn't exist...certainly not as a third party.

Quote:

I've already told you my reasons, which you have apparently ignored or rejected.

Rejected, because they don't make any logical sense. You voted for someone you KNEW couldn't win, apparently because it made you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Quote:


They are different sides of the same statist coin.

Compared to Ron Paul, yes. But Ron Paul won't really be running. Neither will Lincoln. Or Reagan. Or Brett Favre. Or Mickey Mouse.

Quote:


But we do have more than two choices. You're refusing to see that.

Please explain how we have more than two choices. We have a Democrat and a Republican, and then maybe a third party candidate that cannot win. We have two choices in reality. Two.

Quote:


No, I'll be voting for the candidate of my choice.

You're just being obstinate and ostrich-like at this point. You know full well that Paul would split the conservative/Republican vote and deliver the election to Obama. You can pretend that this circumstance or that will change it, but that's all it is..pretending.


...in Iowa. In one poll. Take a look everywhere else. It's not going to happen. Sorry, boss. It's just not.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #142 of 328
Thread Starter 
SDW2001, my answers have not changed since the last time I repeated them.

If Obama wins because of a split conservative vote, it will be because conservatives weren't able to put up a candidate that they could unite behind.

And really, your condescending attitude towards me is not helping your cause. You don't understand my reasoning. That's fine. But you don't have to be rude about it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #143 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

SDW2001, my answers have not changed since the last time I repeated them.

If Obama wins because of a split conservative vote, it will be because conservatives weren't able to put up a candidate that they could unite behind.

And really, your condescending attitude towards me is not helping your cause. You don't understand my reasoning. That's fine. But you don't have to be rude about it.

Jazz, I don't mean to be rude, honestly. Actually, you're the one that started toyed around with some strawmen and obviously absurd comparisons, which isn't appreciated either.

As for your answers, you're correct I don't understand them, but that's not because of lack of effort or ability. It's because your answers truly don't make any logical sense on this issue. I'm pressing you because for some reason, you keep refusing to acknowledge our political reality. This is bewildering to me, because I really view you as a very intelligent member with whom I often agree, and whose posts I enjoy reading. In other words, this kind of exchange is really not like you from my perspective.

I realize you are a principled man who is essentially a libertarian. I respect that. As I've indicated, I agree with much of what Ron Paul stands for. I've also expressed regret that things are not different. There is no GOP candidate with the electability, experience and persona with Romney who is more conservative/libertarian than the GOP field. And because of our system's structure at present, even if such a person did run as a third party, he or she would have virtually no chance of winning.

All of this leads me to what I do as a voter. Like you, I despise Obama's presidency. I believe him to be an absolute disaster for this country, from fiscal policy to national security to how he represents us as Americans. I will therefore vote for ANY credible alternative. To me, the most credible GOP candidate is Romney. He's got experience, good personal character, good judgement and stances on issues that I mostly agree with. To you, Paul is the most credible alternative. Note that I am not trying to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong...our mild disagreement on candidate is not the issue.

The only point I am making is that if your candidate loses the nomination (and I think he will), him running as a third party will make it more likely that Obama gets re-elected. Therefore, if you vote for him in that situation, your vote helps Obama. This is one situation where I think pragmatism has to win over principle for the sake of, if nothing else, at least having someone as POTUS that is somewhat better than who we have.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #144 of 328
I bet you $10,000 Romney is completely out of touch with the average American.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #145 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I bet you $10,000 Romney is completely out of touch with the average American.

I'd have to see the money up front. Something tells me you wouldn't be good for it.

I'd like to see you compare Romney and Obama to the average American and see which had more in common. Don't we all remember being adopted while living abroad and attending the local Islamic school? I totally remember that!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #146 of 328
Thread Starter 
I appreciate your candid response, SDW. And I apologize if I have come across as rude or insulting to you.

I know it's difficult for you to understand why I don't see Romney/Gingrich as being any better than Obama, but that's the way I see things.

You keep saying I'm refusing to acknowledge reality. I actually think it's the other way around.

The reality is that both political parties are corrupt at their very core. The establishment candidates of each party advocate and support big government. They may differ slightly on where they claim government growth should occur, but they both support bigger government. In addition, they have been bought by Big Business, which has profited by using the coercion and force of the State to its advantage.

And on the subject of crony capitalism, guess who is the only candidate who has not had one single billionaire donate to his campaign. I'll give you a hint. It's not Newt.

I don't want this farce to continue.

It makes no sense to me to vote for Newt/Romney who may reign in domestic spending ever so slightly, yet expand and increase spending on our overseas empire and send more of our men and women in the armed services to kill and be killed in foreign lands. The end result is the same. Bigger government.

Obama is even worse because he wants to expand domestic government, increase government control over the lives of American citizens, and claims to be reigning in our our overseas empire while actually expanding it. The end result is the same. Bigger government.

Neither option is acceptable to me. And I cannot, in good conscience, vote for the "lesser of two evils" again knowing that I'm still voting for evil.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #147 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You keep saying I'm refusing to acknowledge reality. I actually think it's the other way around.

I'm going to try to show you how it isn't the other way around.

Quote:
The reality is that both political parties are corrupt at their very core.

Ron Paul is a member of one of those parties. That means he is corrupt at his core. He is corrupt for even being a part of the process. That is your reasoning here. You can't join the big pot and not avoid the taint.

Quote:
The establishment candidates of each party advocate and support big government. They may differ slightly on where they claim government growth should occur, but they both support bigger government. In addition, they have been bought by Big Business, which has profited by using the coercion and force of the State to its advantage.

So you think with the election of one man, big unions or big business or big whatever is going to just go away because a hand is waved. Their interests aren't just going to disappear. They have to be part of the solution.

Quote:
And on the subject of crony capitalism, guess who is the only candidate who has not had one single billionaire donate to his campaign. I'll give you a hint. It's not Newt.

I'll give you a hint. The billionaires and their interests aren't just going to disappear. Do you really want everyone with money to invest to take their ball and go home? Do you want them to feel alienated and like they can't be part of the process or solution?

This is exactly what Obama has done. He vilifies job creators, threatens to tax them to death and then wonders where the jobs and investment went.

Quote:
I don't want this farce to continue.

It's a farce to believe you can exclude parts of the problem from the solution. It's a farce to say some interest that has been living high on the hog is just going to give that up without a fight. We need someone who can inform them the gravy train is going away and give them a timeframe and options for moving on.

I'm going to digress for a second and share a personal anecdote on this. When I deal with a rental situation that has gone bad, I keep all of this in mind. I've got a renter who has possession of the unit. I've got the eventual force of law on my side for getting possession back given an amount of time, I've got small claims to get a judgement for the lost money, I've got principle on my side with regard to I'm right in every regard and they are wrong with regard to morals and contract law.

That really doesn't help me as much as you might think. They can inflict a lot of damage on a unit. They can cause a lot of problems for their neighbors. In short, even when they are 100% wrong I have to consider, weigh and pander a bit to their interests. Damage to the unit can cost thousands. An eviction can cost hundreds and takes 3-6 weeks. The rent is still not being paid while all this is going on.

So here's the solution I use. I serve a three day pay or quit. Most people simply can't quit in three days. They can't move that quickly. They need to rent a storage unit, borrow money from someone, beg some relative to take them in, etc. I don't lie to them and I tell them the truth. However it is the truth they want to hear rather than what is likely to be reality. I tell them that if they can quickly move out and get their unit clean, if I can quickly get the unit prepped and if I can get someone else in, that it will mitigate the damages I could charge on their lease and could even end up with some of their security deposit coming back to them.

In their minds, they will make the unit spotless. They will be out in 3-5 days. Someone will want this unit starting on the 8-9th day of a month (good luck finding that) and they will have avoided an eviction, paying rent for a month, and will even end up with a couple hundred dollars in their pockets.

I end up filing the three day pay or quit notice, but do not go forward with the eviction as long as I see progress being made toward moving out. They are often out within about ten days, not the 3-5 they imagine. I have two types of handymen. One type are the get it done quick, get paid, expensive type. The other are retirees who are slow, only work for a bit each day, talk about half the time and they don't charge much. With twenty days in the month I hire the latter. They take about 7-10 days to prep the unit and also do the cleaning that the tenant did only in their mind. (The former can have it prepped in a day or weekend at most) This leaves a week to show and fill the unit right around the time when, surprise, people are looking for units aka the end of the month.

In principle I could spend $400-$500 in fees and time to evict them. It would be on their credit and I'd be fully justified. A sheriff would toss them in the street in 3-6 weeks depending upon if they showed up to fight in court. I'd lose at least two months rent. Once I have the unit back I'd have to work even more quickly to mitigate my losses and that means hiring the more expensive handyman. The tenant, knowing their credit is being trashed, knowing they've hit a point of no return, knowing the hard line is the only line could do something very expensive or stupid.

In short being principled there would be very, very expensive.

Do I have a loss when a tenant doesn't pay and I have to negotiate them out? Absolutely but the loss is literally a third to a quarter of what it otherwise would be if they dug in. I get the money flowing again, the trainwreck moves on with their life and my loss is minimized.

BTW, almost every landlord and business owner understands this so when they really do have to evict someone or take them to court, it is because that person has become so expensive that it becomes the least expensive and least time-consuming route which means that party being dealt with is a serious, serious mess. (I've had to do this three times in 13 years.)

Quote:
It makes no sense to me to vote for Newt/Romney who may reign in domestic spending ever so slightly, yet expand and increase spending on our overseas empire and send more of our men and women in the armed services to kill and be killed in foreign lands. The end result is the same. Bigger government.

Suppose you are 100% right. Obama obviously has been expanding both. If you win one front in a two front war, that only leaves the other front. If you give up both fronts due to principle, you are still left fighting a two front war.

Quote:
Obama is even worse because he wants to expand domestic government, increase government control over the lives of American citizens, and claims to be reigning in our our overseas empire while actually expanding it. The end result is the same. Bigger government.

Yes and rather than getting half of what you want, you'll give him back the full pie.

Quote:
Neither option is acceptable to me. And I cannot, in good conscience, vote for the "lesser of two evils" again knowing that I'm still voting for evil.

No problem. Like I noted in my example above, you can be right in principle and ignore the interests of all the parties who need reform who will then work against you and make what you want very hard and expensive. Ignore all the billionaires, retirees, and everything else and instead of cutting a deal that helps them get out, simply tell them you will force it to what is right in principle. I'm sure all the push back, the court cases, the spending toward the next election a scant two years away will all work out just fine.

Trouble and trainwrecks don't just go away. The choices are between having them be a little expensive or very expensive. They have rights but honestly know who they are and that they've been on the gravy train. You give them a chance to settle out and most of them will take it. The problem is that settling out isn't called principle.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #148 of 328
Thread Starter 
It's different means to the same end, trumpt.

I think you're smart enough to see the writing on the wall and know that who wins at this stage in the game is largely inconsequential. It's a hollow victory.

Our country's recovery is a long shot, at best. Impossible at worst. I'm simply doing now what we all should have done in the first place to avoid this mess: voting for the best candidate, regardless of party. And I'm hoping that sentiment will catch on before it really is too late.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #149 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I bet you $10,000 Romney is completely out of touch with the average American.

As stupid a comment as when the media tried to trump up that angle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I appreciate your candid response, SDW. And I apologize if I have come across as rude or insulting to you.

Appreciated and reciprocated.

Quote:

I know it's difficult for you to understand why I don't see Romney/Gingrich as being any better than Obama, but that's the way I see things.

Fair enough...we disagree.

Quote:

You keep saying I'm refusing to acknowledge reality. I actually think it's the other way around.

The reality is that both political parties are corrupt at their very core. The establishment candidates of each party advocate and support big government. They may differ slightly on where they claim government growth should occur, but they both support bigger government. In addition, they have been bought by Big Business, which has profited by using the coercion and force of the State to its advantage.

Here's the thing...I understand that. All of it. But as trump said, the interests are no just going to go away. In the end I still think Romney/Gingrich are better than Obama, by far.

Quote:

And on the subject of crony capitalism, guess who is the only candidate who has not had one single billionaire donate to his campaign. I'll give you a hint. It's not Newt.

I don't care of billionaires donate. In fact, they are welcome to so long as there is full disclosure.

Quote:

I don't want this farce to continue.

It makes no sense to me to vote for Newt/Romney who may reign in domestic spending ever so slightly, yet expand and increase spending on our overseas empire and send more of our men and women in the armed services to kill and be killed in foreign lands. The end result is the same. Bigger government.

But the problem is that you're still comparing what Paul would do with what Romney/Gingrich would do. That's the wrong comparison if Paul runs as a third party candidate, because we cannot win.

Quote:

Obama is even worse because he wants to expand domestic government, increase government control over the lives of American citizens, and claims to be reigning in our our overseas empire while actually expanding it. The end result is the same. Bigger government.

No, it's not...you said it yourself, it's even worse.

Quote:

Neither option is acceptable to me. And I cannot, in good conscience, vote for the "lesser of two evils" again knowing that I'm still voting for evil.

But your other choice, again, is to vote for a third party guy (probably), which will just ensure that "even worse evil" gets in. This is the part I can't justify. I can accept that we disagree on foreign policy to an extent, and that you think Paul is better than the GOP candidates on every issue. But I feel like you're running a Paul vs. Romney campaign (or are responding to one) when that's not at all what Im talking about.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #150 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

But the problem is that you're still comparing what Paul would do with what Romney/Gingrich would do. That's the wrong comparison if Paul runs as a third party candidate, because we cannot win.

And from my perspective, if Paul or someone with similar views on foreign policy, monetary policy, and civil liberties doesn't become president, we all lose. If he loses the GOP primary, at that point if I vote for him or someone else as a third party candidate it makes no difference.

Let me break down my perspective for you in a hypothetical Newt Romney vs Obama matchup:

I vote for Newt Romney and Newt Romney wins = we all lose.

I vote for Newt Romney and Obama wins = we all lose.

I vote for Obama and Newt Romney wins = we all lose.

I vote for Obama and Obama wins = we all lose.

I vote for a third party candidate and Newt Romney wins = we all lose.

I vote for a third party candidate and Obama wins = we all lose.

My vote makes no difference in that scenario. But wait...

I vote for a third party candidate and the third party candidate wins = WE HAVE A CHANCE.

Improbable? Sure. Impossible? Never.

And it is that slim possibility that motivates me to vote for the guy I think will do the best job. Hopefully more people will come to their senses and realize that they have a better chance to make a difference by voting for the guy the establishment declares irrelevant than voting for the guys the establishment created.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #151 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As stupid a comment as when the media tried to trump up that angle.

There's no angle to trump up. He's ready to toss around $10,000 as if it were $5. Do we really need another member of the 1% in office?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #152 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

There's no angle to trump up. He's ready to toss around $10,000 as if it were $5. Do we really need another member of the 1% in office?

First of all, he wasn't ready to toss $10,000 around. He made what he called an absurd bet to respond to an absurd claim....he said later he might as well have offered $1,000,0000, because that was the point.

Whether or buy the above or not, I frankly don't care how much money he or anyone else has. The problems we have are not caused from "the 1%" having lots of money.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #153 of 328
Yes, he spun it later. You just gladly gobble up anything he defecates on you--and you demand seconds. He's your guy now. He can do no wrong in your eyes.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #154 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You're welcome to vote your interests and beliefs. The rest of the populace will as well. I reminded of a line from one of my favorite Alan Parker film "Fame." Bruno complains about having to consider the other musicians or the ear of his audience to the teacher and declares he can do it all himself using technology. The teacher stares at him and declares that isn't music, it is masturbation. The point isn't to offend. It is merely to show that no one operates in a vacuum.



That simply isn't true. He hasn't wiped the floor with anyone in the Republican debates so why would he do so with a complicit media and Obama? He's ignorable because he can be ignored. I'm sorry but that is also the issue I have with Romney. Explaining yourself simply isn't enough. The media will take things like oh, a bet of a joke and spin it into an entire worldview complete with narrative their talking heads provide. Paul waits, his turn, answers the question and then goes back and that's it. He'll explain but he doesn't challenge.



Newt was clearly the center of almost all attacks during the last debate and had no problem keeping cool and rebutting them. He knows his own record very well and gladly provides context as we all saw. He isn't trying to be a blank slate or empty book to hide an agenda and as such, he will gladly reveal what he supported and why he supported it. He hit the single payer mandate during the last debate, gave the history and declared how in retrospect, it wouldn't have worked out but it was put forward to help fend off Hillarycare.



Wrong. This is the same media that declares that cuts in the rate of growth are the same thing as killing Grandma and that is precisely why Paul won't touch on the areas that need the biggest reform. That said, big changes are easy to make sound scary.



I'll let you dig into it for yourself but Paul has some newsletters from the 80's that I'm certain the media will love to dig into and use against him.



Paul doesn't have a proven record of making change occur. His ideas will be easy to portray as too extreme and he isn't forceful enough in challenging the media narrative to end up on offense instead of merely defending the ideas. Paul helps bring about a bit of curiosity for his views which is what Perry mentioned in the last debate and thanked him for as well. That's about all he is with regard to effectiveness. The best idea doesn't exist in a vacuum. It needs 50+1 or else it is useless.

He is to old and set in his weird ways. To much government intervention! Give me a break with this winner.He is not for the poor or the middle class either.Forget Paul and get some young fresh meat in there to run against Obama.
post #155 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Yes, he spun it later. You just gladly gobble up anything he defecates on you--and you demand seconds. He's your guy now. He can do no wrong in your eyes.

He is my guy, and he can absolutely do wrong. I've laid out where I disagree with him, but apparently that's not good enough.

As for the explanation, all I did was summarize what he said. He's in politics, so of course he's going to try to spin it. That's what all people running for office do, including St. Ron Paul. Now, do I buy it? I don't know. Honestly, I don't care what he meant by it. What I do know is him betting $10,000 doesn't mean anything about him being "out of touch." He's never claimed to be middle class. Why does that even matter? Him having money doesn't mean he doesn't understand middle class suffering at the hands of the Obama economy. It doesn't invalidate the fact that he's been more middle class centered than any candidate on the stage (example: He wants reduced cap gains for upper middle class and below, not zero cap gains across the board like Gingrich).

Speaking of which, was John Edwards out of touch? How about John Kerry? No, of course not. They cared about the plight of the little guy despite their lavish lifestyles, $400 haircuts and marriage to a billionaire. Because their hearts were in the right place. Because they were Democrats.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #156 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

And from my perspective, if Paul or someone with similar views on foreign policy, monetary policy, and civil liberties doesn't become president, we all lose.


I don't agree with much of his foreign policy (which doesn't really exist), so I disagree with you somewhat.

Quote:


If he loses the GOP primary, at that point if I vote for him or someone else as a third party candidate it makes no difference.

Not true. It makes a large difference, especially if enough others follow.

Quote:

Let me break down my perspective for you in a hypothetical Newt Romney vs Obama matchup:

I vote for Newt Romney and Newt Romney wins = we all lose

Not as compared to Obama being president, we don't.

Quote:

I vote for Newt Romney and Obama wins = we all lose.

I vote for Obama and Newt Romney wins = we all lose.

I vote for Obama and Obama wins = we all lose.

I vote for a third party candidate and Newt Romney wins = we all lose.

I vote for a third party candidate and Obama wins = we all lose.

My vote makes no difference in that scenario. But wait...

I vote for a third party candidate and the third party candidate wins = WE HAVE A CHANCE.

Improbable? Sure. Impossible? Never.

And it is that slim possibility that motivates me to vote for the guy I think will do the best job. Hopefully more people will come to their senses and realize that they have a better chance to make a difference by voting for the guy the establishment declares irrelevant than voting for the guys the establishment created.

You're back to claiming that Romney and Gingrich are exactly the same as Obama and that it really doesn't matter if Obama is reelected as a result. While I understand the areas in which you disagree with both Romney and Gingrich, Obama being elected is bad. Very bad.

Oh, let me say it again: Ron Paul will not win as a third party candidate. It being remotely, technically possible doesn't mean it has a any realistic chance in hell of happening.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #157 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't agree with much of his foreign policy (which doesn't really exist), so I disagree with you somewhat.

Our troops agree with his foreign policy.

Quote:
Oh, let me say it again: Ron Paul will not win as a third party candidate. It being remotely, technically possible doesn't mean it has a any realistic chance in hell of happening.

Say it as many times as you want.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #158 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Our troops agree with his foreign policy.



Say it as many times as you want.


Right. The majority of our troops agree with Ron Paul. Got it.

And you can keep denying it all you want: You know that a third party candidate is not going to win.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #159 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Right. The majority of our troops agree with Ron Paul. Got it.

No really. They do. Did you watch the video? He's received more donations from active military than all his opponents combined.

Quote:
And you can keep denying it all you want: You know that a third party candidate is not going to win.

I'm not denying anything, but keep repeating yourself. Maybe one of these times I'll suddenly "see the light".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #160 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

It's different means to the same end, trumpt.

I think you're smart enough to see the writing on the wall and know that who wins at this stage in the game is largely inconsequential. It's a hollow victory.

I don't see it as a completely hollow victory. Gingrich for all his many flaws, and perhaps from your view, many positions has indeed moved the needle and I believe he will move it again. I've also said that as screwed up, dependency and debt ridden as the U.S. is, that strangely, China, India and others are much, much worse off. I'll gladly admit that I don't see how they manage to get beat so badly at their own game. It looks like the Fed will have beat the Chinese at their game of the Yuan peg, used it to export inflation on a massive scale and the Chinese economy will have imploded on itself.

Quote:
Our country's recovery is a long shot, at best. Impossible at worst. I'm simply doing now what we all should have done in the first place to avoid this mess: voting for the best candidate, regardless of party. And I'm hoping that sentiment will catch on before it really is too late.

I don't want to belabor the point. I've had a few Baby Boomer threads on here and the reality is that as a generation, they are a giant trainwreck. Clearly as a generation they've got a lot of baggage, made a ton of mistakes and the best we might be able to do is convince them to suck it up a bit and not bankrupt the country with all the promises they've selfishly made to themselves for their retirement years. They really are the problem and I think we need someone who can help attempt to engage them and have them strongly come down on the side of saving some money and saving our nation. Newt speaks to that generation and while he carries some of their baggage, their blindspot and their delusions, the point is they are too big to ignore. We will either find someone who can finally help them come to terms with the world or we don't have a shot.

I simply don't think the very flawed boomer generation who has always bought something other than principle will accept reality and the real solution from unflawed people. It's like begging a fat person to finally change and having a person who has always been skinny lecture them about that need. Gingrich is indeed flawed. It's almost as if he can say, here in my record is where I screwed up and you've screwed up, we've all screwed up and now let's fix it. Paul has his generation and he has those after the boomers as well quite a bit because when you grow up under the trainwreck, a good number of people want to avoid it. However someone has to convince that huge boomer generation for us to have a shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

There's no angle to trump up. He's ready to toss around $10,000 as if it were $5. Do we really need another member of the 1% in office?

Are you seriously claiming Obama isn't a member of the 1%? What about his background makes you believe this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Yes, he spun it later. You just gladly gobble up anything he defecates on you--and you demand seconds. He's your guy now. He can do no wrong in your eyes.

When are you critical of your "guys"? Where are your critical threads about them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Our troops agree with his foreign policy.

Say it as many times as you want.

I agree with his foreign policy as well. I can believe the troops would agree with it because they want to spend their time and energy defending America and not being a cop for the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Right. The majority of our troops agree with Ron Paul. Got it.

And you can keep denying it all you want: You know that a third party candidate is not going to win.

He won't win the nomination but it wouldn't hurt to promise him a cabinet position and have him work to eliminate the need for that department.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy