As a republican, let me explain why republicans are drawn to Newt. As a result of George W Bush years, we republicans have developed a bit of an inferiority complex regarding our politicians -- specifically their inability to cleanly articulate conservative principles and ideals. In other words, we're tired of our politicians looking like idiots. We know that conservative values, when properly articulated, are incredibly powerful and popular. We've seen it before (Reagan), and we know there are people today who can articulate it very well (Rush Limbaugh is particularly good at this).
Of the candidates, Gingrich articulates conservative values better than anyone (when he chooses to). I've remarked multiple times in this thread that Gingrich is the smartest guy on the stage at any of the debates, and I can't imagine how anyone can still doubt this after the last debate. Republicans look at Gingrich and see a guy who actually can talk the talk. Hell, Gingrich even knows that this is why people are drawn to him. Why do you think he keeps mentioning that he's the guy to debate Obama and is always mentioning the Lincoln/Douglas debates? He's playing on the desire of republican voters to have a smart-sounding candidate.
If you compare Newt to any of other candidates, none of them can hold a candle to his eloquence. Romney is passionless and equivocating. Paul is just a little too crazy. Santorum is an asshole. We'll see how this plays out, but republicans clearly like Newt's style.
I think Newt will only guarantee Obama to be reelected, he has zero chance in the general imho.. smart is too big a word for him, he times well the use of slapstick rhetoric and bullies himself out of disadvantageous positions on stage with flair, but that hardly is qualification to be called smart or to be president material... I mean the guy is a poster child for the crook, immoral, hypocritical and deceptive politicians everywhere, he's not even a conservative heh.
On January 24 2012 04:20 jdsowa wrote: Reagan was divorced, Clinton cheated on his wife with Gennifer Flowers, George W. Bush had a DWI. All those guys got elected for two terms. Their character issues were ultimately ignored because they were charismatic people. The public wants someone they can relate to and who can inspire them with their rhetoric.
If this bothers you, then perhaps democracy just isn't your kind of system.
If Newt was the perfect candidate, he would've wrapped up the nomination a long time ago. He's a FAR more talented politician than Romney. But the public has had to work out whether they can get over those character issues and trust him to be steady. It appears that they are now coming around.
It's not cheating on your wife or being divorced that bothers me. What bothers me about them is when they also preach family values and religious values while they are also doing it. That is hypocrisy, and it's disgusting. Clinton never preached family values. Also, I was vehemently against Bush from the beginning.
See, here's the problem with the idea of democracy as most people understand it, and the idea of democracy as the founders of this country intended. They never intended for people to vote for the person they liked the most or can relate to, because they understood that most people are uneducated (relatively speaking), and not that smart. Therefore, they built the system in such a way as to encourage a more educated elite having the power to make decisions, under the assumption that people would vote according to their own interests and elect the most competent, intelligent person for the job, not just the most charismatic one. The founding fathers were deathly afraid of the uneducated masses having the power to make decisions directly (thus the electoral college, as an example).
The problem is, the Republican party in particular (not just them, but they're the most common example) is very good at convincing people to vote against their own interests, and they tend to put up candidates that "you want to have a beer with". Bush was a dumb as a doorknob.
The Republican party in general attempts to put policies into place that heavily favor the very wealthy and increase the wealth disparity, but their staunchest support tends to be among the people who would benefit the most from just the opposite.
As a republican, let me explain why republicans are drawn to Newt. As a result of George W Bush years, we republicans have developed a bit of an inferiority complex regarding our politicians -- specifically their inability to cleanly articulate conservative principles and ideals. In other words, we're tired of our politicians looking like idiots. We know that conservative values, when properly articulated, are incredibly powerful and popular. We've seen it before (Reagan), and we know there are people today who can articulate it very well (Rush Limbaugh is particularly good at this).
Of the candidates, Gingrich articulates conservative values better than anyone (when he chooses to). I've remarked multiple times in this thread that Gingrich is the smartest guy on the stage at any of the debates, and I can't imagine how anyone can still doubt this after the last debate. Republicans look at Gingrich and see a guy who actually can talk the talk. Hell, Gingrich even knows that this is why people are drawn to him. Why do you think he keeps mentioning that he's the guy to debate Obama and is always mentioning the Lincoln/Douglas debates? He's playing on the desire of republican voters to have a smart-sounding candidate.
If you compare Newt to any of other candidates, none of them can hold a candle to his eloquence. Romney is passionless and equivocating. Paul is just a little too crazy. Santorum is an asshole. We'll see how this plays out, but republicans clearly like Newt's style.
I think Newt will only guarantee Obama to be reelected, he has zero chance in the general imho.. smart is too big a word for him, he times well the use of slapstick rhetoric and bullies himself out of disadvantageous positions on stage with flair, but that hardly is qualification to be called smart or to be president material... I mean the guy is a poster child for the crook, immoral, hypocritical and deceptive politicians everywhere, he's not even a conservative heh.
Oh believe me, I'm painfully aware of Newt's limitations. In fact, I have openly remarked that there is no guarantee that Newt would be any more conservative than Romney as a president.
As for the corruption charges, is Obama really any different? So many of Obama's policies and actions, ranging from his green energy initiatives to the way that the auto-bailouts were handled, reek of corruption.
As a republican, let me explain why republicans are drawn to Newt. As a result of George W Bush years, we republicans have developed a bit of an inferiority complex regarding our politicians -- specifically their inability to cleanly articulate conservative principles and ideals. In other words, we're tired of our politicians looking like idiots. We know that conservative values, when properly articulated, are incredibly powerful and popular. We've seen it before (Reagan), and we know there are people today who can articulate it very well (Rush Limbaugh is particularly good at this).
Of the candidates, Gingrich articulates conservative values better than anyone (when he chooses to). I've remarked multiple times in this thread that Gingrich is the smartest guy on the stage at any of the debates, and I can't imagine how anyone can still doubt this after the last debate. Republicans look at Gingrich and see a guy who actually can talk the talk. Hell, Gingrich even knows that this is why people are drawn to him. Why do you think he keeps mentioning that he's the guy to debate Obama and is always mentioning the Lincoln/Douglas debates? He's playing on the desire of republican voters to have a smart-sounding candidate.
If you compare Newt to any of other candidates, none of them can hold a candle to his eloquence. Romney is passionless and equivocating. Paul is just a little too crazy. Santorum is an asshole. We'll see how this plays out, but republicans clearly like Newt's style.
I think Newt will only guarantee Obama to be reelected, he has zero chance in the general imho.. smart is too big a word for him, he times well the use of slapstick rhetoric and bullies himself out of disadvantageous positions on stage with flair, but that hardly is qualification to be called smart or to be president material... I mean the guy is a poster child for the crook, immoral, hypocritical and deceptive politicians everywhere, he's not even a conservative heh.
Oh believe me, I'm painfully aware of Newt's limitations. In fact, I have openly remarked that there is no guarantee that Newt would be any more conservative than Romney as a president.
As for the corruption charges, is Obama really any different? So many of Obama's policies and actions, ranging from his green energy initiatives to the way that the auto-bailouts were handled, reek of corruption.
Yes Obama is different, there's no evidence of any sort of any kind of corruption. I strongly disapprove of the way the bailouts were handled too, but that doesn't mean he's corrupt.
As a republican, let me explain why republicans are drawn to Newt. As a result of George W Bush years, we republicans have developed a bit of an inferiority complex regarding our politicians -- specifically their inability to cleanly articulate conservative principles and ideals. In other words, we're tired of our politicians looking like idiots. We know that conservative values, when properly articulated, are incredibly powerful and popular. We've seen it before (Reagan), and we know there are people today who can articulate it very well (Rush Limbaugh is particularly good at this).
Of the candidates, Gingrich articulates conservative values better than anyone (when he chooses to). I've remarked multiple times in this thread that Gingrich is the smartest guy on the stage at any of the debates, and I can't imagine how anyone can still doubt this after the last debate. Republicans look at Gingrich and see a guy who actually can talk the talk. Hell, Gingrich even knows that this is why people are drawn to him. Why do you think he keeps mentioning that he's the guy to debate Obama and is always mentioning the Lincoln/Douglas debates? He's playing on the desire of republican voters to have a smart-sounding candidate.
If you compare Newt to any of other candidates, none of them can hold a candle to his eloquence. Romney is passionless and equivocating. Paul is just a little too crazy. Santorum is an asshole. We'll see how this plays out, but republicans clearly like Newt's style.
I think Newt will only guarantee Obama to be reelected, he has zero chance in the general imho.. smart is too big a word for him, he times well the use of slapstick rhetoric and bullies himself out of disadvantageous positions on stage with flair, but that hardly is qualification to be called smart or to be president material... I mean the guy is a poster child for the crook, immoral, hypocritical and deceptive politicians everywhere, he's not even a conservative heh.
Oh believe me, I'm painfully aware of Newt's limitations. In fact, I have openly remarked that there is no guarantee that Newt would be any more conservative than Romney as a president.
As for the corruption charges, is Obama really any different? So many of Obama's policies and actions, ranging from his green energy initiatives to the way that the auto-bailouts were handled, reek of corruption.
Speculations on Obama's corruption seem to be in line with a partisan agenda of attack rather than solid and proven facts. I think it should be considered on a different level than 80 ethics violation charges found by a bipartisan commission.
As a republican, let me explain why republicans are drawn to Newt. As a result of George W Bush years, we republicans have developed a bit of an inferiority complex regarding our politicians -- specifically their inability to cleanly articulate conservative principles and ideals. In other words, we're tired of our politicians looking like idiots. We know that conservative values, when properly articulated, are incredibly powerful and popular. We've seen it before (Reagan), and we know there are people today who can articulate it very well (Rush Limbaugh is particularly good at this).
Of the candidates, Gingrich articulates conservative values better than anyone (when he chooses to). I've remarked multiple times in this thread that Gingrich is the smartest guy on the stage at any of the debates, and I can't imagine how anyone can still doubt this after the last debate. Republicans look at Gingrich and see a guy who actually can talk the talk. Hell, Gingrich even knows that this is why people are drawn to him. Why do you think he keeps mentioning that he's the guy to debate Obama and is always mentioning the Lincoln/Douglas debates? He's playing on the desire of republican voters to have a smart-sounding candidate.
If you compare Newt to any of other candidates, none of them can hold a candle to his eloquence. Romney is passionless and equivocating. Paul is just a little too crazy. Santorum is an asshole. We'll see how this plays out, but republicans clearly like Newt's style.
I think Newt will only guarantee Obama to be reelected, he has zero chance in the general imho.. smart is too big a word for him, he times well the use of slapstick rhetoric and bullies himself out of disadvantageous positions on stage with flair, but that hardly is qualification to be called smart or to be president material... I mean the guy is a poster child for the crook, immoral, hypocritical and deceptive politicians everywhere, he's not even a conservative heh.
Oh believe me, I'm painfully aware of Newt's limitations. In fact, I have openly remarked that there is no guarantee that Newt would be any more conservative than Romney as a president.
As for the corruption charges, is Obama really any different? So many of Obama's policies and actions, ranging from his green energy initiatives to the way that the auto-bailouts were handled, reek of corruption.
Yes Obama is different, there's no evidence of any sort of any kind of corruption. I strongly disapprove of the way the bailouts were handled too, but that doesn't mean he's corrupt.
That said, I don't like Obama that much either.
One name pops out at me, Solyndra. Obama is of the same breed; Newt's just been at it longer.
As a moderate, there is no chance in hell I vote for Gingrich or Santorum. I will give thought to Romney, and I would probably vote for Paul (most of his crazy stuff will be kept in check by congress).
The truth is that Gingrich is a snake. I trust Obama miles before I trust Gingrich, and I even identify with Republicanism. Santorum... he's just crazy. No thanks. I don't want a bible thumper as my president. Social conservatism is dead with the new generation, and the sooner the Republicans realize this the better off they'll be.
Until then, there is a strong chance I cross the lines and vote Democrat. When one puts forward a far more qualified candidate than the other, it's only right to give the job to the one who has demonstrated he's not a failure. As much as I hate TARP, I think he's done a pretty decent job so far.
As a republican, let me explain why republicans are drawn to Newt. As a result of George W Bush years, we republicans have developed a bit of an inferiority complex regarding our politicians -- specifically their inability to cleanly articulate conservative principles and ideals. In other words, we're tired of our politicians looking like idiots. We know that conservative values, when properly articulated, are incredibly powerful and popular. We've seen it before (Reagan), and we know there are people today who can articulate it very well (Rush Limbaugh is particularly good at this).
Of the candidates, Gingrich articulates conservative values better than anyone (when he chooses to). I've remarked multiple times in this thread that Gingrich is the smartest guy on the stage at any of the debates, and I can't imagine how anyone can still doubt this after the last debate. Republicans look at Gingrich and see a guy who actually can talk the talk. Hell, Gingrich even knows that this is why people are drawn to him. Why do you think he keeps mentioning that he's the guy to debate Obama and is always mentioning the Lincoln/Douglas debates? He's playing on the desire of republican voters to have a smart-sounding candidate.
If you compare Newt to any of other candidates, none of them can hold a candle to his eloquence. Romney is passionless and equivocating. Paul is just a little too crazy. Santorum is an asshole. We'll see how this plays out, but republicans clearly like Newt's style.
I think Newt will only guarantee Obama to be reelected, he has zero chance in the general imho.. smart is too big a word for him, he times well the use of slapstick rhetoric and bullies himself out of disadvantageous positions on stage with flair, but that hardly is qualification to be called smart or to be president material... I mean the guy is a poster child for the crook, immoral, hypocritical and deceptive politicians everywhere, he's not even a conservative heh.
Oh believe me, I'm painfully aware of Newt's limitations. In fact, I have openly remarked that there is no guarantee that Newt would be any more conservative than Romney as a president.
As for the corruption charges, is Obama really any different? So many of Obama's policies and actions, ranging from his green energy initiatives to the way that the auto-bailouts were handled, reek of corruption.
Yes Obama is different, there's no evidence of any sort of any kind of corruption. I strongly disapprove of the way the bailouts were handled too, but that doesn't mean he's corrupt.
That said, I don't like Obama that much either.
One name pops out at me, Solyndra. Obama is of the same breed; Newt's just been at it longer.
Solyndra is just the first one that surfaced. There are like three or four other poor green energy investment decisions that will circle around and bite Obama in the ass soon. Keep in mind that these are just the ones that have been reported on. There almost certainly are others.
Havent read a single post:/ and i dont know if this is the right place to post this. sorry, but pls dont skip this to all TLers from USA, i can only apeal deeply. please do not screw this world. think about your vote VERY VERY carefully. i am no man of old fashion nor any conservativ idea, but as bad as it seems to be i can only think of one man i would vote for... ron paul... in contrast to all other canidates and what i know about them, he is the only one that is blessed with wisdom and not corrupted by money. i would advise all of you to watch this video. just sit there and watch it. then show it to your family, your friends and everyone u know!
On January 24 2012 06:29 SpecialM wrote: Havent read a single post:/ and i dont know if this is the right place to post this. sorry, but pls dont skip this to all TLers from USA, i can only apeal deeply. please do not screw this world. think about your vote VERY VERY carefully. i am no man of old fashion nor any conservativ idea, but as bad as it seems to be i can only think of one man i would vote for... ron paul... in contrast to all other canidates and what i know about them, he is the only one that is blessed with wisdom and not corrupted by money. i would advise all of you to watch this video. just sit there and watch it. then show it to your family, your friends and everyone u know! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DEcJuFvGkDU
Ron Paul is far from perfect but of the republican candidates he's by a mile the most agreeable with. I'd still take Obama over any of them though. Though the more I think about it, the only chance of change ever happening would be to elect some crazy super conservative warmongering nutjob and seeing shit really hit the fan in the US, because there's no reason for change when things are "good enough". Though even that seems farfetched, as it's too easy to manipulate the public opinion into supporting whatever the rulers want.
I can't believe the Republican party is going to sink its own prospects by considering Gingrich seriously. He has less integrity than Perry, and that's saying something.
I have to agree with xDaunt again, Gingrich is clearly the most intelligent candidate up there and the best at debating. I would love to see him get the nomination just because it would make the general election debates so damned interesting.
Ron Paul has many of the best ideas and policies, but he's really not very good at articulating them, at least not on the level of Gingrich. Romney is a terrible debater. He simply knows how to give safe answers and avoid getting in trouble; in other words he is the type of politician who says nothing when he speaks, and we've had those for decades. Romney winning would also basically be a third term of George W. Bush which makes me want to vomit when I think about it.
I honestly expect Obama to win the election. The more I follow this stuff the more likely an Obama win is regardless of who gets the nomination. I'd just love to see Gingrich win the nomination to at least make the race and the debates interesting. Of course I'm sure the media would make it a never ending focus on his personal life and shit... fucking media.
Lower class Republicans may not LOVE the upper class CEO set, but what bothers them more is the idea that Democrats want to take money from primarily productive people (whomever they may be) and give it to primarily unproductive people. These working class folks are busting their ass every day at some crappy job while these other people are hanging out at home on the govt dole. I think they also have an intuitive understanding that social programs incentivize laziness and government dependency.
A more nuanced argument for Republican tax policy would go something like this:
If one individual is in possession of $1 million, they can start up any number of businesses, hire people, or invest in research. If you take that $1 million and divide it by 100 people, you have 100 people that can afford to buy things, but don't have enough cash on hand to actually create jobs or fund any research. So there is no net gain to the economy. That is generally the principle behind "trickle-down economics" -- which is a term that liberals unthinkingly recoil from. It doesn't always work so cleanly in reality, but it's a concept worth understanding.
On January 24 2012 06:59 jdsowa wrote: Lower class Republicans may not LOVE the upper class CEO set, but what bothers them more is the idea that Democrats want to take money from primarily productive people (whomever they may be) and give it to primarily unproductive people. These working class folks are busting their ass every day at some crappy job while these other people are hanging out at home on the govt dole. I think they also have an intuitive understanding that social programs incentivize laziness and government dependency.
A more nuanced argument for Republican tax policy would go something like this:
If one individual is in possession of $1 million, they can start up any number of businesses, hire people, or invest in research. If you take that $1 million and divide it by 100 people, you have 100 people that can afford to buy things, but don't have enough cash on hand to actually create jobs or fund any research. So there is no net gain to the economy. That is generally the principle behind "trickle-down economics" -- which is a term that liberals unthinkingly recoil from. It doesn't always work so cleanly in reality, but it's a concept worth understanding.
Except that it's not what the democrats want either, so what you're saying is that the lower class republicans actually have no understanding or knowledge about any of this.
And there is a mountain of evidence to show that the so called 'trickle-down economics' doesn't work at all, just increases the wealth gap, and does not create jobs. It's so full of shit it's laughable.
On January 24 2012 06:59 jdsowa wrote: Lower class Republicans may not LOVE the upper class CEO set, but what bothers them more is the idea that Democrats want to take money from primarily productive people (whomever they may be) and give it to primarily unproductive people. These working class folks are busting their ass every day at some crappy job while these other people are hanging out at home on the govt dole. I think they also have an intuitive understanding that social programs incentivize laziness and government dependency.
A more nuanced argument for Republican tax policy would go something like this:
If one individual is in possession of $1 million, they can start up any number of businesses, hire people, or invest in research. If you take that $1 million and divide it by 100 people, you have 100 people that can afford to buy things, but don't have enough cash on hand to actually create jobs or fund any research. So there is no net gain to the economy. That is generally the principle behind "trickle-down economics" -- which is a term that liberals unthinkingly recoil from. It doesn't always work so cleanly in reality, but it's a concept worth understanding.
Except that it's not what the democrats want either, so what you're saying is that the lower class republicans actually have no understanding or knowledge about any of this.
And there is a mountain of evidence to show that the so called 'trickle-down economics' doesn't work at all, just increases the wealth gap, and does not create jobs. It's so full of shit it's laughable.
Whom are you trying to kid? The democrat party is the party of class warfare and envy. All they do is demonize the productive members of society and make self-entitled victims of everyone else. What do you think this "paying one's fair share" bullshit is all about?
Riding the momentum of his South Carolina win on Saturday, Newt Gingrich said Sunday he planned a week of big speeches offering “big solutions for a big country.”
“I’ll be at the space coast in Florida this week giving a speech — a visionary speech — on the United States going back into space in the John F. Kennedy tradition,” the former House Speaker said on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal.”
The moment a country starts to consider someone like Newt a 'visionary', you know there's something terribly wrong. I have no real issues with his sexcapades, but he is someone that is up his own ass. Every idea Newt has ever had is great, and anyone that disagrees with him is part of the 'liberal elite/media'. That's not actually debating, that's a shouting match.
I think he's in many respects similar to LePen in France, Haider in Austria and Wilders in the Netherlands. He gets the 'anger' people feel but channels it into seperating people into different groups, good and evil, instead of trying to unify. Electing Gingrich would be a disaster for the US, not only domestically, but would make the presidency a joke and diminish the standing of the US at the world stage.
On January 24 2012 06:59 jdsowa wrote: Lower class Republicans may not LOVE the upper class CEO set, but what bothers them more is the idea that Democrats want to take money from primarily productive people (whomever they may be) and give it to primarily unproductive people. These working class folks are busting their ass every day at some crappy job while these other people are hanging out at home on the govt dole. I think they also have an intuitive understanding that social programs incentivize laziness and government dependency.
A more nuanced argument for Republican tax policy would go something like this:
If one individual is in possession of $1 million, they can start up any number of businesses, hire people, or invest in research. If you take that $1 million and divide it by 100 people, you have 100 people that can afford to buy things, but don't have enough cash on hand to actually create jobs or fund any research. So there is no net gain to the economy. That is generally the principle behind "trickle-down economics" -- which is a term that liberals unthinkingly recoil from. It doesn't always work so cleanly in reality, but it's a concept worth understanding.
Except that it's not what the democrats want either, so what you're saying is that the lower class republicans actually have no understanding or knowledge about any of this.
And there is a mountain of evidence to show that the so called 'trickle-down economics' doesn't work at all, just increases the wealth gap, and does not create jobs. It's so full of shit it's laughable.
Whom are you trying to kid? The democrat party is the party of class warfare and envy. All they do is demonize the productive members of society and make self-entitled victims of everyone else. What do you think this "paying one's fair share" bullshit is all about?
Do you actually believe that being angry about the ridiculous wealth disparity between the ultra-wealthy and the middle class, and wanting to increase the standards of living for the lower class hardworking people who are stuck with shitty jobs or entirely unemployed is the same thing as wanting to take money away from hardworking people and give it to lazy pricks who sit on their couch? Or is that just a strawman? Because I can't believe anyone intelligent would think the two are the same. Nobody wants to give free money to lazy people. It might occasionally be a consequence, but it sure beats the hell out of the current situation.
As for calling the rich the 'productive members of society'.
HAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahaahahahahahaha. They just sit on their asses and get richer with the money they own on their long term capital gains. You do realize society needs janitors and the like right?
On January 24 2012 06:59 jdsowa wrote: Lower class Republicans may not LOVE the upper class CEO set, but what bothers them more is the idea that Democrats want to take money from primarily productive people (whomever they may be) and give it to primarily unproductive people. These working class folks are busting their ass every day at some crappy job while these other people are hanging out at home on the govt dole. I think they also have an intuitive understanding that social programs incentivize laziness and government dependency.
A more nuanced argument for Republican tax policy would go something like this:
If one individual is in possession of $1 million, they can start up any number of businesses, hire people, or invest in research. If you take that $1 million and divide it by 100 people, you have 100 people that can afford to buy things, but don't have enough cash on hand to actually create jobs or fund any research. So there is no net gain to the economy. That is generally the principle behind "trickle-down economics" -- which is a term that liberals unthinkingly recoil from. It doesn't always work so cleanly in reality, but it's a concept worth understanding.
How exactly do you define "unproductive people?" I know poor people that work a hell of a lot harder than most wealthy people. How does having a lot of money make you productive?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/sptusmlbexperts/ron_paul_congress_astros_76.jpg)
