• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Newt Gingrich to launch presidential bid Wednesday

apdst said:
At least she doesn't think there are 57 states in the union.
Click to expand...

Obama admitted to the mistake , he meant States and territories. Palin on the other hand likened herself to Shakespeare.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
The GOP is way too racist to ever nominate a black man (The closest chance would have been Powell). There is zero chance Cain will even finish in the top 5. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Click to expand...

You are full of ****. It's not our party that had a race laden primary in 2008. I don't recall a republican president hauling out the race card. When Keyes ran in 2000 there wasn't an incident. No surprise.

Look at the history of the Republican party and you will find we are not the racist party. Fulbright mentored Clinton. Wright mentored Obama...

Racist Democrats vs. Colorblind Republicans - HUMAN EVENTS

BTW, my first choice in 2000 was Keyes. He was the most eloquent and his positions are clearly unapologetic conservative.
http://www.issues2000.org/Alan_Keyes.htm
Alan Keyes 2000 Web Site

I wish he would run this time.

.
 
Last edited:
BDBoop said:
Question. Why would this man say such a thing?



My guess is, he's backing another horse.
Click to expand...

Because it is typical to expect "new" and "different" during every single Presidential election, forgetting that last time was about "new" and "different". I don't know why anyone really buys into that horse crap anyhow. Bring on "old" and "true", please.
 
I seriously hate Gingrich. It's not only that I hate his politics, but he's just a miserable excuse for a human being. I really, really, really hope he does not get the GOP nomination.
 
apdst said:
GW is less qualified than Obama to be prez?? :lamo

That's a hoot!
Click to expand...


Well....if you are saying he was MORE experienced...then judging by his results....experience doesn't mean a hill of beans now does it?
 
zimmer said:
You are full of ****. It's not our party that had a race laden primary in 2008. I don't recall a republican president hauling out the race card. When Keyes ran in 2000 there wasn't an incident. No surprise.

Look at the history of the Republican party and you will find we are not the racist party. Fulbright mentored Clinton. Wright mentored Obama...

Racist Democrats vs. Colorblind Republicans - HUMAN EVENTS

BTW, my first choice in 2000 was Keyes. He was the most eloquent and his positions are clearly unapologetic conservative.
Alan Keyes on the Issues
Alan Keyes 2000 Web Site

I wish he would run this time.

.
Click to expand...

Good luck believing in that.....there is zero chance that the GOP will ever nominate a black man or woman....at least for the next 20-30 years. Bottom line....the GOP cannot win the Presidency without the South. If they lose the South they lose 80% of their electoral votes...and the South being what it is...the GOP will never go that route.
 
Gingrich? Eh, whatever. If my choice is Obama or Gingrich, I'd probably vote Gingrich but I wouldn't really be happy about it. Quite frankly, and this is going to piss off some GOP honks, I don't think Newt is much of an improvement over Obama. I think he's a hypocrite. He talks a good game but I don't think he backed it up last time he had some power, and electing him President would just mean more of the same.
 
disneydude said:
Good luck believing in that.....there is zero chance that the GOP will ever nominate a black man or woman....at least for the next 20-30 years. Bottom line....the GOP cannot win the Presidency without the South. If they lose the South they lose 80% of their electoral votes...and the South being what it is...the GOP will never go that route.
Click to expand...

The South will support Obama now that we got UBL. Obama is gonna win and that is that.
 
Kali said:
The South will support Obama now that we got UBL. Obama is gonna win and that is that.
Click to expand...

Unlikely....there are a few Southern States that are coming around...but the South is way too biblical based and votes mainly on the right-wing social agenda. The only way that the South might support a Democrat is if it is a conservative Democrat and the GOP were to nominate a black man or woman....and that is not going to happen anytime soon.
 
BDBoop said:
Newt Gingrich to launch presidential bid Wednesday - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election - USATODAY.com

But he didn't wait. He announced today, May 9th, 2011.


Former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich has announced that he will be seeking the Republican nomination for U.S. president in 2012. Gingrich’s plans were made public via Facebook and Twitter Monday, where he also asked supporters to tune into his Fox News interview with Sean Hannity on Wednesday night.
Click to expand...



LOL! Can a philanderer beat a pizza man in the primaries? What a great election this is going to be! :sun
 
I think Cain/Gingrich would be a compelling ticket. I don't concern myself overmuch with a candidate's moral failings as long as I think they can do the job.

Be nice if our leaders displayed the same attitude, though.
 
apdst said:
Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich; Obama is screwed, blued and tattooed.
Click to expand...

At first read, I thought this was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm. Then I noted the source. Wow!

If those clowns are your "A" team, then save your money for races that matter.
 
Kali said:
The South will support Obama now that we got UBL. Obama is gonna win and that is that.
Click to expand...

I'd like to believe so, but in honesty, this will be a distant memory by the time election roles around (and probably rightfully so). The economic landscape of America has to change if he's going to win. Also, if the GOP manages to cough up a serious contender, then their chances will increase exponentially.
 
disneydude said:
Unlikely....there are a few Southern States that are coming around...but the South is way too biblical based and votes mainly on the right-wing social agenda. The only way that the South might support a Democrat is if it is a conservative Democrat and the GOP were to nominate a black man or woman....and that is not going to happen anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Texas isn't going Democratic any time soon.
 
disneydude said:
Good luck believing in that.....there is zero chance that the GOP will ever nominate a black man or woman....at least for the next 20-30 years. Bottom line....the GOP cannot win the Presidency without the South. If they lose the South they lose 80% of their electoral votes...and the South being what it is...the GOP will never go that route.
Click to expand...

We aren't as racist as you think we are. We made the mistake of taking a stance in opposition to entitlements and allowing liberals and spindoctors to decide that we must hate black people, since the majority of those receiving entitlements are black. The truth of the matter is, we want people to take care of themselves instead of depending on the government. If we were racist we'd want them to sit there, collecting a paltry sum, learning nothing, advancing nothing, and stagnating as the poorest, least educated members of society. We don't want that. We're not the ones promoting a dependence on government which has yet to produce an upward mobility for those beholden to it.

Are there some back-woods idiots who vote republican stomping around with rebel flags slewing the n-word? Yeah. Are they the majority of our party? Absolutely not. They're a fringe group of idiots we'd prefer not to have tied to us, but we can't control how they vote.
 
disneydude said:
Good luck believing in that.....there is zero chance that the GOP will ever nominate a black man or woman....at least for the next 20-30 years. Bottom line....the GOP cannot win the Presidency without the South. If they lose the South they lose 80% of their electoral votes...and the South being what it is...the GOP will never go that route.
Click to expand...

Yours is the party that continually tells minorities how inferior they are by stilting the system to their advantage instead of treating them like equals. You give minorities every excuse in the world NOT to be equal with your endless welfare programs, Affirmative Action, reduced academic standards, and forced equality measures.

If you'd just treat minorities as fully capable human beings - like conservatives do - a lot of the ills of their community would begin to subside. Instead, you propogate the dependency and excuse-making for your political gain.

It's so obvious. But without it, your party would cease to exist, so there you go.
 
tessaesque said:
If we were racist we'd want them to sit there, collecting a paltry sum, learning nothing, advancing nothing, and stagnating as the poorest, least educated members of society.
Click to expand...

This is a very odd statement (and one I believe requires acrobatic type leaps of logic to even try and make sense of). If you hate someone, you give them stuff?
 
megaprogman said:
This is a very odd statement (and one I believe requires acrobatic type leaps of logic to even try and make sense of). If you hate someone, you give them stuff?
Click to expand...

No, if you want to keep someone down, you make them dependent on you with welfare program after welfare program, so they fear not voting for you.

When 95+ percent of a race votes one way, it shows an inability to think for themselves. You've got them rat-holed where you want them.
 
megaprogman said:
This is a very odd statement (and one I believe requires acrobatic type leaps of logic to even try and make sense of). If you hate someone, you give them stuff?
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have been more clear. Statistically speaking, welfare has neither encouraged recipients to seek skills or better employment, nor have children of welfare-receiving homes performed better in school. Children of welfare recipients are less likely to finish high school or go to college and are more likely to end up in jail. Keeping a program in place that does nothing to promote the advancement of it's largest recipient (the black community) is, to me, far more racist or discriminatory then telling them "here are your options, take this grant, get a skill, get a job....or get nothing".

Again, we want the "downtrodden" to take care of themselves. I personally have no problem helping them, but entitlements don't help. They're proven to do little more than float the recipient slightly above the poverty level. All entitlements do is hold them down. Just because you're "giving them something" doesn't mean it's something that truly benefits them.
 
Erod said:
When 95+ percent of a race votes one way,
Click to expand...

Can I get a "for instance"? And if it's the instance I think it's going to be - no, I'll wait for confirmation.
 
tessaesque said:
Perhaps I should have been more clear. Statistically speaking, welfare has neither encouraged recipients to seek skills or better employment, nor have children of welfare-receiving homes performed better in school. Children of welfare recipients are less likely to finish high school or go to college and are more likely to end up in jail. Keeping a program in place that does nothing to promote the advancement of it's largest recipient (the black community) is, to me, far more racist or discriminatory then telling them "here are your options, take this grant, get a skill, get a job....or get nothing".

Again, we want the "downtrodden" to take care of themselves. I personally have no problem helping them, but entitlements don't help. They're proven to do little more than float the recipient slightly above the poverty level. All entitlements do is hold them down. Just because you're "giving them something" doesn't mean it's something that truly benefits them.
Click to expand...

Well, you know my thoughts on welfare and how it should be reformed. But it is still quite a leap of logic to attribute bad policy to racism or hatred. Thats where I am having trouble making that leap.
 
Erod said:
......When 95+ percent of a race votes one way, it shows an inability to think for themselves......
Click to expand...

Wow! Do you really want this sentence in one of your posts? Do you really think that a whole race of people are not capable of thought? I think you should think about what you are saying here.

The more normal response to a propensity of a particular race or class of people to vote a certain way would be to think that a particular party or candidate was more closely aligned to the issues of that community, not that the entire class of people were intellectually inferior.

The argument that you may be trying to make is that the Dems bought the black vote with welfare. That is a better argument, but still not a good one. Of course, that would mean the black community does indeed think for themselves.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Well, you know my thoughts on welfare and how it should be reformed. But it is still quite a leap of logic to attribute bad policy to racism or hatred. Thats where I am having trouble making that leap.
Click to expand...

Every article I find states that blacks largely don't vote republican because they feel republicans don't want to "help them". While it would be logical to assume that our dislike for entitlements is the reason for this impression, it is instead assumed that we "hate the black man" and want to keep him down...and our dislike of entitlements only exists because it they are largely used by black families.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom