I do not want Newt to be President, but I much prefer him to that kook Ron Paul.

The eventual nominee (Newt or Romney) will very likely adopt some of Paul's currency policy for the general election so get ready.

I am really asking myself two things (and I am not US American, so...forgive me my sarcasm):

a) How can it be, that the Republicans always seem to come up with the nutters? GW Bush, Sarah Pailin or the lot (all of them) who are now in the race....puuuuleaze!

How can it be, that there are people voting for these nutters at all?

I agree with lannarebirth: as long as Obama just is not being caught doing something outrageously gross (and just governs his way through history), there is no chance in heaven or hell, that one of the named idiots will be elected!

...at least I hope so, but than again: the US of A are the land of countless possibilities!

I didn't say Obama couldn't be beat by any of the Republican candidates. Only that Newt Gingrich is IMO unelectable.

A year before he was elected a lot of people didn't think a black man could be elected president either. I think Newt's aggressive style might attract voters after Obama's lead-from-behind, apolgise-for-America approach.

The key to Newt's popularity is how he outperforms his rivals in the debates. Before the last debate in South Carolina he was behind Romney in the polls by double digits. He then won by double digits. Fifty-years ago in High School he was on the debating team so he has been debating since before Obama was even born. That's a lot of practice. If Newt is the nominee - and Obama is silly enough to confront him in more than the absolute minimum number of debates - I believe his popularity will soar by dismantling Obama in front of the country, live on TV, and Newt will win a decisive victory in November - despite any stupid things he says in between debates. THEN, we have to wonder which Newt we end up with, the Reagan Republicn Newt, or the sit next to Nancy Pelosi and talk about Global Warming Newt. Scary either way.

I don't dispute that Gingrich is intelligent and politically savvy. My main issue with concern to Gingrich is that IMO he is not a decent person. Maybe none of them are, but I think everyone else is more skilled at hiding that fact than he is, especially given that 10 months remain till the election. I've got a lot of complaints about my fellow countrymen but I believe that in the main they are decent people and would like to think they are electing a decent President. I don't think Newt can pass that test.

I do not want Newt to be President, but I much prefer him to that kook Ron Paul.

The eventual nominee (Newt or Romney) will very likely adopt some of Paul's currency policy for the general election so get ready.

As long as they do not give Iran their own personal nuclear weapon,wrapped in pretty paper, I am fine with that.

We can be more than sure what a Gingrich debate will consist of, a repetion of the carefully selected

"words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party".

Words like pathetic, traitors, shame, sick.... is this good debating or is a distraction from the real issues?

The legacy of the GOPAC memo is abuse first, shout the opposition down with vitriol and eventually the public will believe that loud is right.

http://www.informati...article4443.htm

Words like pathetic, traitors, shame, sick.... is this good debating or is a distraction from the real issues?

I would say it is a distraction at best & an admission of lack of knowledge regarding the actual causes of the problems.

For me personally when I listen to them propose/promise their promises...Many times I am left with

the realization that they have a wealth of no idea. That they really do not understand how or where the problem

came from. Or will not openly admit it...knowing they will not address it or be allowed to given who helped them

with their campaign funding

Instead they want to claim they will treat the symptoms but never the cause. As such no cure/lasting repairs in sight.

For me this is the most important election I can ever remember. The US is at a crossroad....just a momentary

pause in a downward spiral. What happens from here in decides a lot.

For me personally this election charts my future & makes a decision for me that I have

flip flopped on for years.

I suspect that many people feel the same way before most elections.

Personally I believe that the same puppeteers pull the strings on both sides of mainstream politics, it's easiest to prepare for the worst without hoping for a non-existent best.

Edit: what happened to firefox spellcheck on this site?

I suspect that many people feel the same way before most elections.

Personally I believe that the same puppeteers pull the strings on both sides of mainstream politics, it's easiest to prepare for the worst without hoping for a non-existent best.

Edit: what happened to firefox spellcheck on this site?

Agreed

PS: for Firefox check in Tools/Options /Advanced & make sure check my spelling is still checked

If it is & still not working..right click in the reply box when making a reply & you may have to click check spelling to reset it.

I am really asking myself two things (and I am not US American, so...forgive me my sarcasm):

a) How can it be, that the Republicans always seem to come up with the nutters? GW Bush, Sarah Pailin or the lot (all of them) who are now in the race....puuuuleaze!

How can it be, that there are people voting for these nutters at all?

I agree with lannarebirth: as long as Obama just is not being caught doing something outrageously gross (and just governs his way through history), there is no chance in heaven or hell, that one of the named idiots will be elected!

...at least I hope so, but than again: the US of A are the land of countless possibilities!

I didn't say Obama couldn't be beat by any of the Republican candidates. Only that Newt Gingrich is IMO unelectable.

A year before he was elected a lot of people didn't think a black man could be elected president either. I think Newt's aggressive style might attract voters after Obama's lead-from-behind, apolgise-for-America approach.

The key to Newt's popularity is how he outperforms his rivals in the debates. Before the last debate in South Carolina he was behind Romney in the polls by double digits. He then won by double digits. Fifty-years ago in High School he was on the debating team so he has been debating since before Obama was even born. That's a lot of practice. If Newt is the nominee - and Obama is silly enough to confront him in more than the absolute minimum number of debates - I believe his popularity will soar by dismantling Obama in front of the country, live on TV, and Newt will win a decisive victory in November - despite any stupid things he says in between debates. THEN, we have to wonder which Newt we end up with, the Reagan Republicn Newt, or the sit next to Nancy Pelosi and talk about Global Warming Newt. Scary either way.

I don't dispute that Gingrich is intelligent and politically savvy. My main issue with concern to Gingrich is that IMO he is not a decent person. Maybe none of them are, but I think everyone else is more skilled at hiding that fact than he is, especially given that 10 months remain till the election. I've got a lot of complaints about my fellow countrymen but I believe that in the main they are decent people and would like to think they are electing a decent President. I don't think Newt can pass that test.

As long as people are feeling OK economically, they don't care how decent the man in charge is. Clinton wasn't decent by a long shot and he was still a popular president.

Chrome spell chekc works fine.

I was watching the debate tonite and couldn't help thinking I wish someone would put together 20-30 minutes of a sitting President's campaign/debate promises and big plans.

I was annoyed at the debate tonite because it was mostly whining about little things and little about the problems we face. Ron Paul appeared above it (he used to attack more), but he isn't trying to become president at this point. He is trying to get a movement started and pass the torch to his Senator son, Rand Paul. Time will tell if that works.

Ron Paul appeared above it (he used to attack more), but he isn't trying to become president at this point. He is trying to get a movement started and pass the torch to his Senator son, Rand Paul. Time will tell if that works.

Personally I do not think RP ever thought he would get the Republican Nomination..........That would be impossible with his stance on the CIA/IRS etc.

Not to mention making Israel stand on their own two feet for once.

No instead it is his time to actually be in the spotlight for debating & getting a message out.

He will then likely run for president on the Libertarian ticket

Sad thing is Obama & who ever wins the Republican nomination will be too chicken sh!t like last time to invite him to any debates & as always

CNN/FOX/MSNBC will ignore him during that process

Flying, do you honestly believe if Newt gets the nomination he will be afraid to debate Paul?

I don't really see that as a likely scenario since he has been debating him for the past few months already.

Flying, do you honestly believe if Newt gets the nomination he will be afraid to debate Paul?

I don't really see that as a likely scenario since he has been debating him for the past few months already.

Gingrich's debating skills are vastly overrated. His bullying and shouting down all those who can see through him is vastly underrepoprted. Every American, regardless of political stripe should fear a Gingrich presidency. Thankfully, that will never happen, but he may ensure that the ineffectual current president gets another term in office.

It seems to be up to Obama to lose rather than whoever gets the Republican nomination to win. All four remaining candidates seem to have too much against them.

Gingrich's debating skills are vastly overrated.

Bullsh*t. He is smart as hell and can think on his feet. I do not think that he is Presidential material, but he certainly can debate.

Gingrich's debating skills are vastly overrated.

Bullsh*t. He is smart as hell and can think on his feet. I do not think that he is Presidential material, but he certainly can debate.

If shouting down an opponent till time runs out can be considered debating, then I'd have to agree with you. He's a smarmy, egocentric, Scrooge-like character. Cheney² . God help America if he get's in power. Though I think Obama would have to be caught deflowering Camp Fire Girls AND Boy Scouts for that to happen.

Gingrich's debating skills are vastly overrated.

Bullsh*t. He is smart as hell and can think on his feet. I do not think that he is Presidential material, but he certainly can debate.

If shouting down an opponent till time runs out can be considered debating, then I'd have to agree with you. He's a smarmy, egocentric, Scrooge-like character. Cheney² . God help America if he get's in power. Though I think Obama would have to be caught deflowering Camp Fire Girls AND Boy Scouts for that to happen.

He has already stated if nominated for the Presidency he will issue a challenge to Obama to hold seven 3 hour debates, ala Lincoln/Douglas of years gone by.

Want to bet Obama does NOT accept the challenge, even though Gingrich has said Obama could use a teleprompter?

Flying, do you honestly believe if Newt gets the nomination he will be afraid to debate Paul?

I don't really see that as a likely scenario since he has been debating him for the past few months already.

Well I hope your right & we will see I'm sure......

But,

It is one thing to debate member from the same party.

The gloves are not really off nor the issues really addressed ...for the most part....

I mean with the exception of Paul the others spent a lot of time on tripe or worse

Also...last time... it could have been Obama or McCain who could have taken the high road & said lets invite all presidential

candidates in the general election to debate. Let the people really choose between those on the General Ballot

Neither did nor will either do so this time ...(who ever the Republican candidate is)

Gingrich's debating skills are vastly overrated.

Bullsh*t. He is smart as hell and can think on his feet. I do not think that he is Presidential material, but he certainly can debate.

If shouting down an opponent till time runs out can be considered debating, then I'd have to agree with you.

More bullsh*t. He has plenty of good debate performances and interviews with no "shouting".

Last night we learned the secret of Newt Gingrich’s debating success: audience participation. With it, he’s the king of the jungle. Without it, he’s a mouse’s squeak. Therefore, NBC did a cruel and terrible thing during Monday’s debate when it decided to gag the audience. Lacking the usual “Hell yeahs!” and “Yo mommas!” that accompany his jibs and jabs, Newt came across as mean and shifty. Had Romney not helpfully self-destructed during a conversation about “self-deportation”, Gingrich might have walked away from this debate a much reduced candidate.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100132064/monday-nights-debate-may-have-burst-newt-gingrichs-bubble/

Flying, do you honestly believe if Newt gets the nomination he will be afraid to debate Paul?

I don't really see that as a likely scenario since he has been debating him for the past few months already.

Well I hope your right & we will see I'm sure......

But,

It is one thing to debate member from the same party.

The gloves are not really off nor the issues really addressed ...for the most part....

I mean with the exception of Paul the others spent a lot of time on tripe or worse

Also...last time... it could have been Obama or McCain who could have taken the high road & said lets invite all presidential

candidates in the general election to debate. Let the people really choose between those on the General Ballot

Neither did nor will either do so this time ...(who ever the Republican candidate is)

It was my understanding the Commission on Federal Debates handled the invitations to the presidential debates. I may be wrong.

http://debates.org/

It was my understanding the Commission on Federal Debates handled the invitations to the presidential debates. I may be wrong.

http://debates.org/

Thanks I have no idea & thought it was agreed upon by the broadcasting company & participants

Would be nice if one of the two party nominees/incumbent took the high road & just said,,,,

Hey let the people decide from all that are on the ballot...So lets all be in the debate.

Then again seeing politics..........I guess the other two will not complain about a 30% benefit by not having to debate

a third.............Not to mention his knowledge of monetary policy/constitutional facts/ foreign policy & how it has changed historically makes them look like amateurs ....So yes I guess I can see where they are coming from by not complaining if he is not included.

Then again this time seems different.....At least the folks I talk to & those I have seen speak after the current debates.

Many say they are embarrassed by the answers or lack of substance.

In any case I do feel a sense of relief this time. Because it does make a decision for me. No more wait & see if the new or old...yet same old guard keep any promises....

I mean really I must have been nuts to think it would change given the past. As I have often said just look at their largest campaign contributors.....There is NO Democrats vs Republicans.....It is only an illusion of choice they place in front of us to keep us thinking we have a say.

Too bad in many ways...........For America I mean...Because when folks whose families have been in the same place as contributing citizens for 7 generations + like I have...finally feel a sense of no hope....Who will be left? Only those that need to stay as they have no options....aka: The entitled recipients who care not as long as the government fills their EBT cards...Yet these are not the folks who pay their way or employ others or actually made/did something positive in America.

Gingrich's debating skills are vastly overrated.

Bullsh*t. He is smart as hell and can think on his feet. I do not think that he is Presidential material, but he certainly can debate.

If shouting down an opponent till time runs out can be considered debating, then I'd have to agree with you. He's a smarmy, egocentric, Scrooge-like character. Cheney² .God help America if he get's in power. Though I think Obama would have to be caught deflowering Camp Fire Girls AND Boy Scouts for that to happen.

Smarmy should have read sinister, malignant, malevolent, etc. pick one.

Rich must pay their fair share: Obama

Barack Obama has delivered a populist pitch to Americans ahead of his re-election bid, calling for tax reform to eliminate inequality and to ensure the wealthy pay their fair share – at least 30 per cent, if they earn more than $US1 million a year.

Confronting the growing divide between rich and poor in the US, Mr Obama called for the removal of tax breaks that allowed the wealthiest Americans to pay a lower rate of tax than ordinary wage earners.

And in what was clearly a campaign speech ahead of November's election, he said he would resist any efforts by political opponents to return the US to the sort of policies that led to the 2008 financial crash.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/rich-must-pay-their-fair-share-obama-20120125-1qh17.html

This would really bite deep on some our board members...

Fortunately if I was Yank I'd just slip under the bar.

Rich must pay their fair share: Obama

Barack Obama has delivered a populist pitch to Americans ahead of his re-election bid, calling for tax reform to eliminate inequality and to ensure the wealthy pay their fair share – at least 30 per cent, if they earn more than $US1 million a year.

Confronting the growing divide between rich and poor in the US, Mr Obama called for the removal of tax breaks that allowed the wealthiest Americans to pay a lower rate of tax than ordinary wage earners.

And in what was clearly a campaign speech ahead of November's election, he said he would resist any efforts by political opponents to return the US to the sort of policies that led to the 2008 financial crash.

http://www.theage.co...0125-1qh17.html

This would really bite deep on some our board members...

Fortunately if I was Yank I'd just slip under the bar.

He also announced formation of a group to go after Wall Street frauds that created the recent financial crisis. Nothing will be done of course, and you could tell his heart wasn't in it, but just to give the appearance of doing anything would give him more credibility than the Republican hopefuls have garnered in that realm so far. The problem is he has to run on his track record, which is doing a whole lot of nothing.

Ron Paul appeared above it (he used to attack more), but he isn't trying to become president at this point. He is trying to get a movement started and pass the torch to his Senator son, Rand Paul. Time will tell if that works.

Personally I do not think RP ever thought he would get the Republican Nomination..........That would be impossible with his stance on the CIA/IRS etc.

Not to mention making Israel stand on their own two feet for once.

Perhaps even more important is saying that killing bin Laden was wrong. Sorry, there are rules, and there are exceptions to rules, The Rule of Law is great, but some people still deserve a bullet in the head. RP doesn't believe this and this is what will keep him from getting votes, not some conspiracy by the CIA or IRS. To run a country takes working with others and compromising (we've been failing at that for a long time). RP doesn't give the impression that he would compromise on anything he sees against the Constitution. While very admirable, you must choose your battles carefully.

I also think you are misrepresenting his stance on Israel. As I understand it, he is against foreign aid in general and points out that Israel is strong enough to take care of itself (along with Germany, Japan, South Korea). That makes sense. Phrasing it as you did above makes him sound like he is signalling out Israel and may even be against them. You've read more of his stuff than I have, is that the case? Is RP anti-Israel?

Two things about the debates:

1) I wish they were actual debates and not question/answer periods about who did what in the past.

2) Gingrich and Paul know what they are talking about, Santorum and Romney do not. To recognize this, notice how Newt & Paul when asked a question go straight into answering it. Rick & Romney use the old tried & true robo-response of "I want to thank you for asking that question, blah, blah, blah" while they try to remember their talking points. Romney is the worst because he will go off for so long on his prepared speech that he forgets the original question. Remember recently when he forgot, looked at Newt and Newt threw up his hands and said, "Don't ask me"?

Obama's "Rich must pay their fair share": In 2008, the top 1% accounted for 20.82% of the income (based on individual income tax returns) and paid 36.71% of all individual income taxes collected. This is hard data straight from the irs.gov own excel spreadsheet database (file name "08in07tr.xls". The bottom 50% of those individual returns (representing about 70 million households) paid about 3% of the taxes on 12.51% of income share. Now WHO isn't paying their fair share?

Personally I do not think RP ever thought he would get the Republican Nomination..........That would be impossible with his stance on the CIA/IRS etc.

Not to mention making Israel stand on their own two feet for once.

.

I also think you are misrepresenting his stance on Israel. As I understand it, he is against foreign aid in general and points out that Israel is strong enough to take care of itself (along with Germany, Japan, South Korea). That makes sense. Phrasing it as you did above makes him sound like he is signalling out Israel and may even be against them. You've read more of his stuff than I have, is that the case? Is RP anti-Israel?

You have the ability to often take what I say out of context...I am not 100% sure you do it on purpose so let me explain......

As you can see by the line that preceded it I was speaking about what keeps Paul from ever being a Republican Presidential Pick

The same could be said for a Democrat running for president who thought Israel should not get Billions per year in Financial/Military aid.

Israel Lobbyist is fact in Washington....God knows why....But there is a large segment of America that puts Israel interest ahead of the USA

As for his stance on Foreign FINANCIAL/MILITARY aid.............Yes I have said it many times when explaining to certain Israel supporters who like to use it to claim Ron Paul is antisemitic ................He is not singling out Israel & feels the exact same way about Egypt & others who we give what we do not have to,

So we print it & give it. Another thing that he sees as wrong is at times we have even give financial aid that we ourselves could use to our creditors & they do not even subtract it from out debt to them....

Lastly in regards to Israel .....Ron Paul makes a good case on how our support of them has actually hurt them & peace in that region.

Saying that if we did not give billions per year in Financial & Military aid to them they would more likely be working on a solution to their problems through negotiation rather than fire power given to them....again by us who cannot afford it at all.

Remember when he speaks he is not including humanitarian aid as something to stop with any country that truly needs it.

Ron Paul will get to speak at the convention. Big whoop!

I am praying to my atheist non-God that Newt gets the nomination.

His chance of being elected president are extremely remote. Anything is possible of course. We elected that brain dead case, Reagan. Talk about a puppet! It hilarious how the right wingers worship him as if he was a God.

Romney is also the wrong flavor this time. I call him Fakey McRich. He makes Gore look super genuine.

I don't know if Ron Paul is antisemitic or not, but his movement certainly attracts a whole boatload of antisemites. I do know he doesn't care one little bit about the right of Jews to have a Jewish state in Israel and that is extremely non-mainstream for a modern American politician. He does indeed remind me of the fascistic, right-wing, racist, antisemitic, ISOLATIONIST American movement that fought long and hard to avoid getting involved in world war 2. Imagine Paul in charge instead of FDR in those times! Libertarianism is a sham philosophy. There has never been a libertarian nation state and there never will be.

I don't know if Ron Paul is antisemitic or not, but his movement certainly attracts a whole boatload of antisemites. I do know he doesn't care one little bit about the right of Jews to have a Jewish state in Israel and that is extremely non-mainstream for a modern American politician.

I have heard the antisemitic claims but reading his books I would say 100% no

But as I said in a previous post I do see why the confusion exists.

I do not think it is a matter of whether he cares about a Jewish State anymore than many other problems in the world.

But I do think he tries to remain focused on America's problems & puts them 1st.

There is a saying ... in looking after yourself you also look after others

Most would agree that at this point in time the USA is in dire straights & needs to look after itself.

If & when we are healthy then let us help those who need it....equally

Personally I do not think RP ever thought he would get the Republican Nomination..........That would be impossible with his stance on the CIA/IRS etc.

Not to mention making Israel stand on their own two feet for once.

.

I also think you are misrepresenting his stance on Israel. As I understand it, he is against foreign aid in general and points out that Israel is strong enough to take care of itself (along with Germany, Japan, South Korea). That makes sense. Phrasing it as you did above makes him sound like he is signalling out Israel and may even be against them. You've read more of his stuff than I have, is that the case? Is RP anti-Israel?

You have the ability to often take what I say out of context...I am not 100% sure you do it on purpose so let me explain......

As you can see by the line that preceded it I was speaking about what keeps Paul from ever being a Republican Presidential Pick

The same could be said for a Democrat running for president who thought Israel should not get Billions per year in Financial/Military aid.

I'm not doing it on purpose. Remember, I'm on the Ron Paul bandwagon now along with you. But,at the end of the day, when discussing certain issues you have to be careful not to say things in a way that sound bad out of context.

Back to the way you worded it, it sounds like RP is anti-Israel, and by default, pro-Palestinian. Therefore it is going to get people riled up. Jingthing appeared in this thread in OTB out of nowhere, could it be he searches for the word "Israel" every day? In any case, he's here, and he's riled up and ready to fight anti-Semitic, bigoted, right-wing, fascist, racist windmills. Instead of writing, "Not to mention making Israel stand on their own two feet for once." Maybe it would have been better to write something like, "Ron Paul wants to cut foreign aid, especially to countries who are well off enough to take care of themselves - like Germany, Japan, Israel and South Korea. Of course, the Israel part would bring him the most opposition at home". I don't think RP would ignore either of those countries if they were attacked - as long as Congress declared war as laid out in the Constitution. In fact, from the debate I got the feeling that as President, Ron Paul would have no problem with war in general as long as it is constitutionally declared.