Gingrich Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Semper_Zelare said:
Maybe he wanted to ask him if he agrees with how his theory of Evolution is used as a talking point for atheists. Does Darwin agree with what the atheists are saying about him, or is what they’re saying revisionist history?

That seems important to know. Darwin’s answer could potentially lead a lot of people away from atheism.

Seriously though… 6 people you’d want to eat dinner with. I mean, would you refuse to vote for a President if the 3 books he took to a desert island were: The Bible, The Catechism, and The Lord of the Rings…

as opposed to the Divine Office?

Give me a break, Are you people seriously saying this has bearing on your VOTE? Your vote for the leader of this country involves a discussion on 6 people a candidate would eat dinner with. Are you serious? :doh2: Are you people for realz? :ehh:

HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE CRAZY?!?!?! ] 😦 :confused::eek:
Click to expand...
Exactly. The discussion is just plain silliness.
 
rlg94086 said:
Who knows? Maybe he wanted to debate him. 🤷

You are making the same erroneous assumption that the journalist made. He didn’t choose Darwin “over” Aquinas, Augustine or Christ. He was asked for a list, and he provided one. To say he would choose any one of the six on his list versus the Saints or Our Lord is presumptive on your part.
Click to expand...
If Newt decided that he is working for Jesus Christ, then if he were to be limited to only six people, then Newt might well want to see if he could frame his questions and discussion points to see if get Darwin to publicly state some modifications on evolution thought.
 
rlg94086 said:
I agree. She’s not crazy. She’s a shrewd, inside trader.
Click to expand...
Nancy Pelosi is the consummate liberal Democrat politician.

Take a look at the family she grew up in, in Baltimore!

Look at her present family and how her husband’s business interests are structured.

This is all public knowledge, although rarely discussed.
 
louis91766 said:
Six people living or dead that he would want to have dinner with. It is curious that he did not mention Moses, St. Paul, Mary, the Mother of God, St. Thomas Aquinas, or St. Augustine, but he did mention Charles Darwin. Why would anyone want to have dinner with Charles Darwin over St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine or Our Divine Lord?
Click to expand...
Maybe he talks to God and the saints on a daily basis? After all, they are present in the mass. 🙂
 
CMatt25 said:
Yes Gingrich from what I can gather fits the Church definition of pro life as it relates to abortion. But when you call someone something very negative, presumably even if it’s someone on the poltical left and assuming “crazy” is very negative to call a person, you need proof please beyond that you disagree with her politics. Why didn’t you just say you would vote for Gingrich over Pelosi because you agree with him and not her?
Click to expand...
I didn’t call her crazy out of political motivation. I legitimately think that the woman is not completely sane.
 
louis91766 said:
There is Huntsman and there is Ron Paul. Both are excellent candidates. And neither one of them has been cited for ethics violations.
Click to expand...
Why do you call Huntsman a good candidate? I find it ironic that you even mention him in the same sentence as Paul.
 
I don’t see how Newt can ever be the nominee. Here is a short list of reasons, not neccesarily in order of importance:
  1. The party leadership and at least some of the rank and file remember why they tried to force him out of the Speakership in the 90s, and then ran him out of office when the GOP lost the House.
  2. He has supported each of the following moderate, sensible but now supposedly heretical positions:
    a. Insurance mandates.
    b. Other key aspects of Obamacare, such as centralized electronic medical records, end of life counseling, etc.
    c. Cap and trade and other global warming related policies.
    d. Medicare part D.
  3. He was an advocate for Freddie and Fannie right up to the point the housing market finally collapsed.
  4. He sold “access” to himself and his political contacts to a wide variety of industries and lobbying groups. (Who knows what other skeletons have yet to tumble from that closet).
  5. He is great at throwing out ideas, but not such a champ at devising and implementing practical applications of those supposedly great ideas.
  6. He has significant personal baggage - with his divorces just being the best-known example.
  7. No matter what they say out loud, hard-core evangelicals will not forgive him for leaving a “born again” religion for Catholicism.
  8. He has a tendency to stray from his talking points and speak off-the-cuff, which can be entertaining, but leads to a lot of wild statements and gaffs.
  9. His political record (as opposed to his current rhetoric) reveals that he is not really particularly conservative - certainly no more conservative than Romney, and probably less so.
  10. He is acerbic and unlikable, which might be excusable if not for all the other problems.
Those are just the first ten that come to mind, I’m sure there are more. He will have his couple weeks, like the rest of them. That will help his books sales and maybe revive his commentator, analyst and consultant businesses. I don’t see it having more impact than that.
 
TMC said:
I don’t see how Newt can ever be the nominee. Here is a short list of reasons, not neccesarily in order of importance:
  1. The party leadership and at least some of the rank and file remember why they tried to force him out of the Speakership in the 90s, and then ran him out of office when the GOP lost the House.
  2. He has supported each of the following moderate, sensible but now supposedly heretical positions:
    a. Insurance mandates.
    b. Other key aspects of Obamacare, such as centralized electronic medical records, end of life counseling, etc.
    c. Cap and trade and other global warming related policies.
    d. Medicare part D.
  3. He was an advocate for Freddie and Fannie right up to the point the housing market finally collapsed.
  4. He sold “access” to himself and his political contacts to a wide variety of industries and lobbying groups. (Who knows what other skeletons have yet to tumble from that closet).
  5. He is great at throwing out ideas, but not such a champ at devising and implementing practical applications of those supposedly great ideas.
  6. He has significant personal baggage - with his divorces just being the best-known example.
  7. No matter what they say out loud, hard-core evangelicals will not forgive him for leaving a “born again” religion for Catholicism.
  8. He has a tendency to stray from his talking points and speak off-the-cuff, which can be entertaining, but leads to a lot of wild statements and gaffs.
  9. His political record (as opposed to his current rhetoric) reveals that he is not really particularly conservative - certainly no more conservative than Romney, and probably less so.
  10. He is acerbic and unlikable, which might be excusable if not for all the other problems.
Those are just the first ten that come to mind, I’m sure there are more. He will have his couple weeks, like the rest of them. That will help his books sales and maybe revive his commentator, analyst and consultant businesses. I don’t see it having more impact than that.
Click to expand...
Obama is friendly and very likeable, but an epic disaster as a President.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Obama is friendly and very likeable, but an epic disaster as a President.
Click to expand...
What has that to do with the topic? My comments are not aimed at whether Gingrich would be a good president, but at whether the GOP will nominate him. I just don’t see the GOP nominating him. I also don’t think he would be electable in the general election for many of the same reasons, but I don’t think he will get that far.
 
TMC said:
What has that to do with the topic? My comments are not aimed at whether Gingrich would be a good president, but at whether the GOP will nominate him. I just don’t see the GOP nominating him. I also don’t think he would be electable in the general election for many of the same reasons, but I don’t think he will get that far.
Click to expand...
I am trying to demonstrate that the trait of likeability has zero bearing on the capacity to be President.
 
TMC said:
What has that to do with the topic? My comments are not aimed at whether Gingrich would be a good president, but at whether the GOP will nominate him. I just don’t see the GOP nominating him. I also don’t think he would be electable in the general election for many of the same reasons, but I don’t think he will get that far.
Click to expand...
Nothing. But neither do I see Gingrich’s surge lasting until Tampa, let alone Nov of that same yr.
 
TMC said:
I don’t see how Newt can ever be the nominee. Here is a short list of reasons, not neccesarily in order of importance:
  1. The party leadership and at least some of the rank and file remember why they tried to force him out of the Speakership in the 90s, and then ran him out of office when the GOP lost the House.
  2. He has supported each of the following moderate, sensible but now supposedly heretical positions:
    a. Insurance mandates.
    b. Other key aspects of Obamacare, such as centralized electronic medical records, end of life counseling, etc.
    c. Cap and trade and other global warming related policies.
    d. Medicare part D.
  3. He was an advocate for Freddie and Fannie right up to the point the housing market finally collapsed.
  4. He sold “access” to himself and his political contacts to a wide variety of industries and lobbying groups. (Who knows what other skeletons have yet to tumble from that closet).
  5. He is great at throwing out ideas, but not such a champ at devising and implementing practical applications of those supposedly great ideas.
  6. He has significant personal baggage - with his divorces just being the best-known example.
  7. No matter what they say out loud, hard-core evangelicals will not forgive him for leaving a “born again” religion for Catholicism.
  8. He has a tendency to stray from his talking points and speak off-the-cuff, which can be entertaining, but leads to a lot of wild statements and gaffs.
  9. His political record (as opposed to his current rhetoric) reveals that he is not really particularly conservative - certainly no more conservative than Romney, and probably less so.
  10. He is acerbic and unlikable, which might be excusable if not for all the other problems.
Those are just the first ten that come to mind, I’m sure there are more. He will have his couple weeks, like the rest of them. That will help his books sales and maybe revive his commentator, analyst and consultant businesses. I don’t see it having more impact than that.
Click to expand...
  1. Newt Gingrich already has many endorsements from people. They’re listed on his Presidential campaign page on wikipedia. So, he has enemies in politics… everyone does, he also has a lot of friends. A lot of ppl he’s worked with in Congress, and a lot of the old “Reagan Coalition” of Republican politicians out there. Just check the endorsements.
  2. People don’t have to agree with a candidate 100%. Mike Huckabee made a talking point out of that “if you agree with me 100% on everything, that’s kind of creepy, if you’re normal you’ll disagree with me on some things”. When did all of the Republicans have to believe the same things? Shouldn’t there be a MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS? Nixon, Reagan, and both of the Bushes had some un-orthodox GOP positions as well. [and so did McCain].
  3. We don’t know if he was “an advocate” for Fannie and Freddie. That’s like saying Cain WAS treating women bad. We don’t know on either charge… yet. Let’s wait for the facts to make a guilty verdict.
4.-6. Ehh. Americans can forgive him. I think all of that is nit-picky. Who is the better Anti-Romney candidate? Gingrich is the first one to actually have a substantive campaign. That simply matters more than these points. Gingrich is the best candidate other than Romney, who up to this point 75% of Republicans cannot get behind.
  1. I will employ statistical evidence to refute this claim. I will destroy this argument with the irrefutability of numbers. Numbers don’t lie, here they are sir:
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com...roduction/Cms/POLL/9p7nhjxj-kupd4mgpthyfa.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com...roduction/Cms/POLL/ujw139swq0ak9tyl1izmrg.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com...roduction/Cms/POLL/0vkr7-iygkcnq9k6r45mqg.gif
As of June 2011, Catholics are about as electable as Blacks and Women. In the 1960s that might’ve been a bad thing. Today, there aren’t very many racists or sexists. And apparently there aren’t very many anti-Catholics either.
  1. We’ll see if he does have gaffes. Personally, I’d say he has “straight-talk”. Remember who else “straight-talked” the American people? John McCain, our nominee.
  2. Republican Revolution. First conservative speaker in like forever. I think that plainly, a lot of people disagree. Newt is a solid conservative.
  3. Newt Gingrich had the second highest likeability in a recent poll. Again, you’re assertion with words stands no match to cold, hard, and unbiased facts: In June his favorability nationally with Republican voters plummeted all the way to 36/49. Now he’s at 68/23, representing a 58 point improvement in his spread since then.
36 favorable, 49 unfavorable June 2011
68 favorable, 23 unfavorable November 2011

**Now, that I’ve refuted your 10 points, more or less. Please, if you want to go into a specific point, I’d be more than willing. But, let’s not keep quoting and posting on 10 different points and clutter the thread.
**
I would be much obliged :tiphat:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top