EPTThere's still alot of time and things could change drastically, but while Newt fits pretty well with the conservative crowd I doubt he'll appeal to the more general public.
Republican nominations - Page 360
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Sumahi
Guam5609 Posts
There's still alot of time and things could change drastically, but while Newt fits pretty well with the conservative crowd I doubt he'll appeal to the more general public. | ||
|
Yongwang
United States196 Posts
| ||
|
RoMGraViTy
United States314 Posts
On January 26 2012 02:18 Yongwang wrote: If Obama somehow wins then America is doomed. America is also doomed if Mittens (Obama #2) wins. While I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's policy's, at least he follows the Constitution (unlike Obama). This is such a common misconception. Obama follows the Constitution just fine. Just because he doesnt Interpret it to the letter like Ron Paul wants to doesnt mean he doesnt act within the confines of the law. Its almost like different Christians having different interpretations of the bible. For example, Paul criticizes the use of armed forces without a congressional declaration of war as delegated by the Constitution, yet the powers delegated to the executive hold that he can send troops wherever under the necessity of defense or moral justification. (See Vietnam, 2nd Gulf War, Korea, Bosnia) Paul is a reactionary - many of his beliefs about what the government should do stem from the literal interpretation of the Constitution, and any action, agency or program not specifically delegated by it shouldnt exist. Consider how much social progress such a position could eradicate. If Obama didnt actually act within political precedent, and/or the powers of the Constitution, scholars, Judges, and State Authorities would be constantly up in arms over what he does. More importantly, consider what the Bush Administration did when they enacted the Patriot Act. If you want to talk about a potentially huge violation of the Constitution, look there. That STILL has people going crazy. | ||
|
Yongwang
United States196 Posts
On January 26 2012 02:27 RoMGraViTy wrote: This is such a common misconception. Obama follows the Constitution just fine. Just because he doesnt Interpret it to the letter like Ron Paul wants to doesnt mean he doesnt act within the confines of the law. Its almost like different Christians having different interpretations of the bible. For example, Paul criticizes the use of armed forces without a congressional declaration of war as delegated by the Constitution, yet the powers delegated to the executive hold that he can send troops wherever under the necessity of defense or moral justification. (See Vietnam, 2nd Gulf War, Korea, Bosnia) Even if you support Obama's foreign wars, you have to admit the fact that he wants to destroy the Bill of Rights, take away our guns and indefinitely detain any American citizen without trial are all clear violations of the Constitution. So are his extrajudicial killing of American citizens. | ||
|
RoMGraViTy
United States314 Posts
On January 26 2012 02:30 Yongwang wrote: Even if you support Obama's foreign wars, you have to admit the fact that he wants to destroy the Bill of Rights, take away our guns and indefinitely detain any American citizen without trial are all clear violations of the Constitution. So are his extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Wrong again. First off, Obama has pulled all Troops out of Iraq, is trying to AVOID war with Iran, never put any troops into Libya, and is preparing to reduce troop levels in Afghanistan. Please look this up and get the real information. Destroy the Bill of Rights? How, seriously? Take away our guns? He has actually signed 1 law about guns in his entire presidency, and that was to expand gun rights by allowing people to conceal them in national parks. Now, if you want to argue over the legality of the indefinite detention, i will yield that point to you. I will however argue two points on this worth considering. First, the law was intended for American Citizens who voluntarily choose to fight for our country's enemies. Second, it should be noted that until such precedent exists where an American citizen who is NOT fighting under a different flag is detained, and said law is the cause, no harm has been committed, even if the possibility for it exists. Third, Just remember that it was Congress that wrote the law. Find out who and yell at them just as much. | ||
|
Instigata
United States546 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Also more trouble for Romney: One of Mitt Romney's key charges against Newt Gingrich is that he lobbied for mortgage firm Freddie Mac, a point he's trying especially hard to drive home in Florida, where the housing crisis was particularly devastating. However, there may be a chink in Romney's argument: the Daily Caller reports the presidential hopeful has some Freddie Mac lobbyists on his own team. One of his top surrogates and advisers is a former representative who helped block regulation that would have prevented the mortgage crash, and another spent years lobbying for Freddie Mac. While campaigning in Florida Tuesday, Romney simultaneously attacked Gingrich for his work with Freddie Mac and embraced Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is known for her loyalty to mortgage banks during a time of crisis for her state. Source | ||
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
On January 26 2012 02:46 RoMGraViTy wrote: Second, it should be noted that until such precedent exists where an American citizen who is NOT fighting under a different flag is detained, and said law is the cause, no harm has been committed, even if the possibility for it exists. I simply cannot agree on this point. A number of terrible things could be declared "legal", and whether or not they have been acted upon doesn't change the fact that they are, in fact, awful ideas. It becomes a slippery slope and definitions are likely to be interpreted ambiguously. Ron Paul correctly points out in the video below that the precise words used are "associated forces." I don't know about you, but I think that this leaves a lot of subjectivity in a law that should never be taken lightly. Additionally, in dealing with enemies of the state, it's not likely that the general public would even hear about an American citizen being whisked away. I think it sets a violent, coercive precedent and subtly says a lot about Obama and how he intends on governing people. | ||
|
FeUerFlieGe
United States1193 Posts
On January 26 2012 02:30 Yongwang wrote: Even if you support Obama's foreign wars, you have to admit the fact that he wants to destroy the Bill of Rights, take away our guns and indefinitely detain any American citizen without trial are all clear violations of the Constitution. So are his extrajudicial killing of American citizens. If you have ever studied US political history you'll find many examples of multiple interpretation of the constitution. For instance, the constitutionality of a national bank, the constitutionality of secession, interpreting the limits of the 14th amendment, ect. What one may find constitutional sometimes isn't seen the same way by others. | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
Yeah, but who is going to call him out on that? It's certainly fair game, but it wont get mainstream coverage unless another candidate (other than Ron Paul) makes it an issue. Newt can't do it, as it would make him look like a hypocrite. I sort of doubt Santorum will, though it's possible. Either way, this is a nice little example of how politics get done in America. If you leave office, there's a nice job waiting for you as a lobbyist. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8576 Posts
On January 26 2012 04:41 Omnipresent wrote: Yeah, but who is going to call him out on that? It's certainly fair game, but it wont get mainstream coverage unless another candidate (other than Ron Paul) makes it an issue. Newt can't do it, as it would make him look like a hypocrite. I sort of doubt Santorum will, though it's possible. Either way, this is a nice little example of how politics get done in America. If you leave office, there's a nice job waiting for you as a lobbyist. Not trying to weaken your point cuz you are definitely right, but I can assure you it´s not just that way in America. You could also take Austria as a prime example for your claims(among many other countries I am sure.) | ||
|
RoMGraViTy
United States314 Posts
On January 26 2012 03:51 Instigata wrote: What was he referring to when he said he wanted more executive power? Obama? He was referring to the power of consolidation also given to Reagan in order to restructure government agencies by combining them. | ||
|
RoMGraViTy
United States314 Posts
On January 26 2012 04:22 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: I simply cannot agree on this point. A number of terrible things could be declared "legal", and whether or not they have been acted upon doesn't change the fact that they are, in fact, awful ideas. It becomes a slippery slope and definitions are likely to be interpreted ambiguously. Ron Paul correctly points out in the video below that the precise words used are "associated forces." I don't know about you, but I think that this leaves a lot of subjectivity in a law that should never be taken lightly. Additionally, in dealing with enemies of the state, it's not likely that the general public would even hear about an American citizen being whisked away. I think it sets a violent, coercive precedent and subtly says a lot about Obama and how he intends on governing people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg69QM1yXQQ I can only maintain that i dont agree with it either, i was just pointing it out. Also, this: " I think it sets a violent, coercive precedent and subtly says a lot about Obama and how he intends on governing people." is laughable, for 2 reasons. One- as i said above, Congress wrote it and snuck it in the budget which he was forced to sign because of how delayed it was already. Two- Im sure the fact that he waited until his Presidency was nearly up to sign it clearly is evidence of sinister intentions. Oh and i dont mean to seem like im bashing Ron Paul. I like the guy a lot. Except for all the reactionary philosophy, i agree with most of the things he says. | ||
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On January 26 2012 03:51 Instigata wrote: What was he referring to when he said he wanted more executive power? He basically wants to streamline the processes that havnt been modernized. Right now any major changes to the executive branch and its departments have to go thru congress and if the past year has shown anything its that nothing goes thru congress so a lot of the processes are out of date. He wants the power to basically streamline it himself instead of asking for permission to do it. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contest/geo/FL | ||
|
RoMGraViTy
United States314 Posts
On January 26 2012 10:12 Derez wrote: Gingrich is polling incredibly poorly at the moment compared to before the weekend, seems like Romney beat up enough on him again to remind people that he's the poorest candidate in the entire field. http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contest/geo/FL Santorum is worse i think. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
| ||
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
I just heard on the radio that Gingrich is raising in the polls - doesn't this contradict with Derez's post above? What the hell is going on? | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
I actually think Santorum is OK. Surely I don't like his religious zeal, but he seems like an honest guy who really believes his core values. I find Gingrich an unreliable person and did a terrible job as the speaker; Romney is a professional politician with no fundamental values. Ron Paul is just plain stupid. Of course, if I was an US citizen I'd still vote for Obama. He is quite popular in Canada and abroad (maybe except Israel, haha)... | ||
|
vetinari
Australia602 Posts
On January 26 2012 10:53 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: I'm curious, how are these polls conducted? I just heard on the radio that Gingrich is raising in the polls - doesn't this contradict with Derez's post above? What the hell is going on? Company calls up a bunch of people, asks them for an opinion. Do some statistical analysis, give out poll numbers. The polls have plenty of noise, so take them with a grain of salt. | ||
| ||
