Newt Gingrich or Barack Obama?

[classy]

I want one of 3 things to happen, Obama decides not to run and lets Hilary run instead. Or Hilary runs as an independent. Or we change the the constitution so Bill Clinton can run again and we vote him back in office.

Any of the 3 possible? Nope. But it sure is nice to dream day of a better place than where we are now .

 

[cybrsage]

I agree.

A third picking Newt means a third who are dangerously imbicilic.

You messed up your math. If 1/3 pick Newt, that means there are 2/3 who are dangerously imbicilic. 1-1/3 = 2/3

 

[cybrsage]

I want one of 3 things to happen, Obama decides not to run and lets Hilary run instead. Or Hilary runs as an independent. Or we change the the constitution so Bill Clinton can run again and we vote him back in office.

Any of the 3 possible? Nope. But it sure is nice to dream day of a better place than where we are now .

I would vote for Hillary over Obama. I feel the bile rising in my throat as I say that, but I have to admit the truth.

 

[jman19]

Personally, I was rather fond of the humor used to create the line:

Obama-n-Biden....Osama-bin-Laden

When you say them both fast they sorta sound alike. I thought it was witty at least.

Out of curiousity, what does your avatar say? My Hebrew vocabulary is rather lacking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tohu_wa-bohu

 

[0roo0roo]

Not really, and really not in comparison to the Republicans who followed since.

Tell me about election corruption, lobbying, national debt, bad wars under each.

considering his bungling and blathering about israel, the morons helped elect enough republicans to the white house that he should be dead to any dems who still have their heads on straight.

 

[cybrsage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tohu_wa-bohu

TYVM!

 

[ericlp]

semi-tech geek forum? Not surprised at all given the demographic that hangs out here. P&N been a heavy leftist forum ever since it was given it's own subforum. Many of those on the right have left, been banned, or just stay out of here due to a multitude of reasons. I am surprised it isn't even more slanted towards BHO given it was Newt vs BHO.

what? your still here and not banned? Speaks volumes!

 

[Craig234]

(Needs question repeated)

Sure. Tell me about election corruption, lobbying, national debt, bad wars under each.

 

[boomerang]

PN used to be weighted left, now not so much

And when do get to use barracks middle name again?

I can't wait!

Which iteration of his name? He's used several over the years...

 

[squirrel dog]

enough Odrama , anyone but him .

 

[Zorkorist]

Apparently not. More mellobama.

-John

 

[micrometers]

obama in a heartbeat.

yup.

Romney is more of a 40/60 guy, who I could get behind in the right circumstances, but Gingrich? No way.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I'm going to pout in the corner as I realize that I can't live in an idealistic world, and have to vote for the lesser evil (meaning, I'd like to vote for Paul, but he likely has no chance. So my vote would be wasted...and as things currently stand, a vote for Romney over the alternatives of Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry and such is the lesser evil.)

Hell, even if someone like Gingrich DOES get the nomination, I'd take him over obama.

Can we be done with the two party system now?

 

[Craig234]

enough Odrama , anyone but him .

It's great we let people who can't make a case two sentences long vote.

 

[airdata]

It's great we let people who can't make a case two sentences long vote.

Yeah, the anyone but him stuff is pretty dangerous. Republicans currently have a complete joke of a presidential field.

Main stream media endorses one candidate, then the candidate exposes themselves and then main stream media jumps to the next candidate.

Any except for Ron Paul who's still pulling ahead of everybody else in many polls. Other candidates have even stolen Ron Paul's talking points in an attempt to pander to his support base.


I'm still waiting for media to jump on Huntsman and say he's the front runner of the field... LOL.

 

[werepossum]

They'll vote for anyone but Obama. The devil himself could put an R next to his name and the repubs would vote for him over Obama.

Wait a minute. Surely there's a law that keeps the devil from running on both parties' tickets at the same time? =-O

Newt's a paler, smarter, less liberal version of Obama and would probably implement the same policies as has Obama, but with worse personal ethics. Given that choice, I'll vote Libertarian, as President Obama doesn't scare me as much as did wackadoodle "Dreams from my father" hard socialist candidate Obama.

 

[werepossum]

It's great we let people who can't make a case two sentences long vote.

Like we could disenfranchise 75% of the Democrat base. Hell, you guys scream like gut shot hogs just for having to prove identity to vote.

 

[airdata]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ppbPSm4MAxg

 

[werepossum]

Gingrich is (like McCain) one of the people for whom I am on principle adamantly opposed to voting. But I will admit that I read something today at lunch that made me go "hmm". The writer pointed out that Gingrich, unlike any other potential candidate, has successfully faced the same problems - jobs, out of control spending, and a rising budget deficit - that we face today when he was Speaker of the House and by all accounts the architect of the '94 Republican majority, reducing the growth of spending, and balancing the budget. Kind of makes one think. In fact, had the Congresses from 2001 on not gone insane with spending, we would have started this crisis reasonably flush rather than in a deep hole.

 

[Craig234]

That'll teach me to read the board without logging in, my ignore list didn't block this werepossum post.

Gingrich is (like McCain) one of the people for whom I am on principle adamantly opposed to voting. But I will admit that I read something today at lunch that made me go "hmm". The writer pointed out that Gingrich, unlike any other potential candidate, has successfully faced the same problems - jobs, out of control spending, and a rising budget deficit - that we face today when he was Speaker of the House and by all accounts the architect of the '94 Republican majority, reducing the growth of spending, and balancing the budget. Kind of makes one think. In fact, had the Congresses from 2001 on not gone insane with spending, we would have started this crisis reasonably flush rather than in a deep hole.

You aren't one to let honesty slow you down as it gets in your way - there are no skid marks as you run it over - but for those reading you:

The *fact* are that the deficit skyrocketed to unprecedented heights in the hitory of the country in peacetime under the 12 years of Reagan/Bush leading up to Clinton in 1992.

Clinton had a consistent rate of reducing the deficit every year during his eight years in office, INCLUDING his first two years, BEFORE Newt, with a Democratic Congress.

So Republicans taking over the House did NOTHING to change the deficit reduction that was linked with CLINTON, not Congress.

And what happened with this 2001 you cite? You don't say. But the answer is, the Republicans took over the Presidency, and continued in Congress (controlling the House, and about one vote short in the Senate, which is pretty meaningless when there are a few Democrats like Joe Lieberman easy to get to vote with them).

So, it was Republicans back in power, and immediately a return to skyrocketing deficits, and borrowed tax cuts for the rich.

That's the record, not the one you claim.

Newt did nothing but bad, basically. In fact, he was cheering the impeachment of Clinton for his affair, while he was having an affair.

His 'leadership' led to a pointless, costly shutdown of government that hurt the country.

He was tea party before tea party was in.

Before he was driven from Congress under ethics allegations.

 

[Obsoleet]

Better than the last? He has basically done all the stuff the left hated about Bush while effectively doing nothing the left wanted him to do.

How can you say he is better when he is actually more of the same?

He's changed course on the wars, not the course I'd prefer.. but, he did conduct all the wars going on in a much more efficient and effective way. He got Osama bin Laden.
Outside of wrecking the economy, that's what sealed Bush's fate as the worst President ever. He failed to bring Osama home in chains, or dragged headless in the streets.
But he can't kill a family friend either.

More of the same? I think without being handed all the situations he was given, he would make more effective changes conducive to his ideology. In the end though, the gridlock that is the power struggle every 4 years makes any change that's difficult (good or bad), impossible to implement.

Key is the wait for a collapse of some sort, or jets to fly into buildings when you want to take the country in a different direction. Gotta have that excuse, President Obama doesn't have one yet. Once he's reeelected, we can only hope for another collapse so we can get another New Deal, and another 100 years of prosperity.

I'm really not sure what people think is so "left" or "liberal" about Obama, or any mainstream Democrat.

He hasn't raised taxes (Reagan, the god of the GOP, did several times, and taxes for the rich were higher under Reagan)

He didn't nationalize the banks, he kept going with bailing them out - a real socialist would have taken them over. Certainly not a liberal act

He continued indefinite detentions, PATRIOT act, stepped up drone strikes all over killing thousands, assassinated a US citizen - none of those are liberal

Obamacare - Hell, that was a copy of the GOP healthcare proposal from 15 years ago. Certainly not liberal, if the GOP thought it up

Just what is so left/liberal about him? Is he "more left" then the current GOP? Yes, but that doesn't make him left. Just like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are both rich, and Bill G is POORER then Buffett, doesn't make Bill G POOR.

Obama is probably a little to the right of center. But the GOP has moved so far out to the far right, in their minds, everyone that isn't as rich as Buffett is poor. But that doesn't mean it's right. Even Bachmann (LOL) called Newt a liberal. Doesn't even make sense, but I guess 30% just believes it blindly

I wouldn't disagree the US political system is entirely shifted to the right.

I'm more of a Kucinich man than anyone, who in my mind is perfectly centrist, but this false rightwing crap that we live in today (both Dems and Reps) is really slowing down historical, pragmatic "what works" policy changes.. which is basically a hybrid system of democratic socialism (public investment aka socialism + capitalism). The way we built this country with the roads, internet and other public infrastructure and government research.
Until we dig deep into our pockets to spend on domestic research and infrastructure, stop funding military invasions that do the average man (here or there) any good, we won't get ahead.

Amazing how all the debates talk about how to put America back on the map again, the first thing to do is pull all those troops home, eliminate all military personnel besides the National Guard, enact a constitutional amendment forbidding the declaration of war outside of self defense, and start worrying about ourselves a little more. Time to be selfish and worry about our kids and each other a little bit for once with public money.

 

[soundforbjt]

It's looking (this month, so far) that the person to beat is Gingrich. All the votes Cain lost seem to be going to Newter. He's the new anti-Romney! Unless Perry pulls something out of his ass, it's going to come down to Newt vs Romney.

At least with Newt, repubs always know where he stands, Beside whomever is paying him.

Sorry, RP supporters.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Neither, I hate em both. But if I simply had to choose, I'd choose Obama because I hate Gingrich far more than him.

I keep hoping that I will see a single good candidate for president in my lifetime. But as I get older, I am starting to realize that may never happen.

 

[bradley]

One of NAFTA’s biggest promoters, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, appeared on the Howie Carr radio show yesterday evening and was asked about the watershed trade pact between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada he helped create. Responding to a caller who asserted that NAFTA killed American jobs, Gingrich didn’t disagree, but retorted by touting the fact that NAFTA had created jobs “close to the United States” in Mexico:


CALLER: Back in the ’90s I remember Ross Perot saying that there was going to be the giant sucking sound of jobs if NAFTA passed. I think it ended up being true, right? And I know you were a big free trader.

GINGRICH: Yeah, well, I don’t think it was true in Mexico. I think the fact is that NAFTA allowed us to build jobs in Canada, the United States, and Mexico, in competition with China. I mean, our big competitor is not Mexico. Our big competitor is China and India. And I’d rather have jobs close to the United States than have jobs overseas in places like China and India. That’s why I was in favor of it. … So in a sense, I’d like our neighborhood to be fairly well off and fairly prosperous.

Listen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3GcnHe9wDY


Of course, critics of NAFTA worried about precisely what Gingrich points to as a success — jobs being created in Mexico and Canada instead of the U.S. While there were many benefits to the American economy from enacting the pact, there is no question that NAFTA pushed low-skilled American jobs out of the U.S. to Mexico. “All 50 states and the District of Columbia have experienced a net loss of jobs under NAFTA,” especially in the manufacturing and agriculture sectors, according to a study from the Economic Policy institute. “[O]ver a million jobs that would otherwise have been created were lost, and wages were pressured downward for a large number of workers with less than a college education.”

And Gingrich himself promised NAFTA would help create American jobs, telling Congress after being re-elected Speaker that the treaty would help the U.S. “focus on increasing American jobs through world sales.” It’s not like Gingrich wasn’t warned about what NAFTA would do to American manufacturing. Robert Reischauer, then the director of the Congressional Budget Office, warned in 1993 that while the deal would create jobs for educated Americans, the gains “will all largely be invisible.” “But when the glass factory in Toledo closes or the textile plant in South Carolina or the furniture manufacturer in North Carolina because those low-wage jobs move to Mexico, it will be highly visible, and it will be attributable to Nafta,” he said.

 

[GrGr]

I wouldn't disagree the US political system is entirely shifted to the right.

I'm more of a Kucinich man than anyone, who in my mind is perfectly centrist, but this false rightwing crap that we live in today (both Dems and Reps) is really slowing down historical, pragmatic "what works" policy changes.. which is basically a hybrid system of democratic socialism (public investment aka socialism + capitalism). The way we built this country with the roads, internet and other public infrastructure and government research.
Until we dig deep into our pockets to spend on domestic research and infrastructure, stop funding military invasions that do the average man (here or there) any good, we won't get ahead.

Amazing how all the debates talk about how to put America back on the map again, the first thing to do is pull all those troops home, eliminate all military personnel besides the National Guard, enact a constitutional amendment forbidding the declaration of war outside of self defense, and start worrying about ourselves a little more. Time to be selfish and worry about our kids and each other a little bit for once with public money.

Eliminating the bloated US military system is the last thing the ruling elite will allow. It is at the core of their money making systems and the handlers of the money making systems rule all in the US and have for a very long time. Read what the genuinely socialist Eguene Debs had to say about the US in 1918 and tell me what has changed about his core observation:

"They tell us that we live in a great free republic; that our institutions are democratic; that we are a free and self-governing people. This is too much, even for a joke. But it is not a subject for levity; it is an exceedingly serious matter. ”

“These are the gentry who are today wrapped up in the American flag, who shout their claim from the housetops that they are the only patriots, and who have their magnifying glasses in hand, scanning the country for evidence of disloyalty, eager to apply the brand of treason to the men who dare to even whisper their opposition to Junker rule in the United Sates. No wonder Sam Johnson declared that “patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” He must have had this Wall Street gentry in mind, or at least their prototypes, for in every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the people.”

“Every solitary one of these aristocratic conspirators and would-be murderers claims to be an arch-patriot; every one of them insists that the war is being waged to make the world safe for democracy. What humbug! What rot! What false pretense! These autocrats, these tyrants, these red-handed robbers and murderers, the “patriots,” while the men who have the courage to stand face to face with them, speak the truth, and fight for their exploited victims—they are the disloyalists and traitors. If this be true, I want to take my place side by side with the traitors in this fight. ”

“The feudal barons of the Middle Ages, the economic predecessors of the capitalists of our day, declared all wars. And their miserable serfs fought all the battles. The poor, ignorant serfs had been taught to revere their masters; to believe that when their masters declared war upon one another, it was their patriotic duty to fall upon one another and to cut one another’s throats for the profit and glory of the lords and barons who held them in contempt.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29638.htm

War mongering, war profiteering and money laundering continues to be the beating heart of the US economy 100 years later. Nothing has changed or will be allowed to change. See the illegal crackdown on the Occupy movements. Any attempt at genuine reform and genuine democracy will be dealt with harshly.

So the choice given you is, and will always be, between a Newt and an Obama, between pointless choice A or pointless choice B. Unless you actually manage to reform to a real democracy. Good luck.