Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy - Page 4

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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.



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



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.



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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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:

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.

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.

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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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

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


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


What did that fix? Answer that question.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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?


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


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!


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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.

Why I'm looking at Newt.


Newt will move the needle and elect more conservatives.

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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.

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 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!

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


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.


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.


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.


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.)


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.


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


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.

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


Appreciated and reciprocated.


Fair enough...we disagree.


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.


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


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.


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


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.

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.

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 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.

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


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


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


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.

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 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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.