Newt
-
What I'm saying is that she might have approached them. If she does that, and offers to speak on camera about Newt for the first time, of course they're going to run it.
Contrary to what you think, this isn't some plot designed to sink Newt. It's a plot to make news and to get ratings. After all, if you're a Democrat super secret spy journalist, like they ALL are, you want Newt to be the nominee. This is the guy you want to face. Because Obama will clean his clock.
Plus, this is going to help Newt, not hurt him.
I would also agree that the fact that this was the first question asked in the debate is sort of pathetic, and Gingrich is half-right, though that was quite a performance. Like I said, he knows what you guys want to hear.
-
One thing I'd ask you is if Newt's megalomania frightens you at all. He really is a unique character. When you look at some of the stuff he's said and written about himself, the self-regard, the belief that the rules don't apply to him, the fact that even his own staff used to refer to him as a sociopath, does that give you pause?
The guy who says stuff like this:
"I have an enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I'm doing it...Oh, this is just the beginning of a 20-or-30-year movement. I'll get credit for it."
Or writes this down - about himself:
"Gingrich--primary mission: advocate of civilization, definer of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who fan civilization, organizer of the pro-civilization activists, leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces."
And try to answer without saying the exact same thing is true of Obama, and not making distinction between two different people with two different personalities, because I could write that post for you I've seen it so many times.
And look, it doesn't matter because Newt's not going to be president. I'm just asking you. Don't you think the guy is a little, well, off?
I mean, I think Mitt Romney is a total phony and his ambition is a little frightening, but I don't worry about his mental stability. That's why I like him - because I think he's calm and rational and mostly evidence-based once an election is over. Whereas I think Gingrich probably suffers from narcissistic personality disorder.
One thing I'd ask you is if Newt's megalomania frightens you at all. He really is a unique character. When you look at some of the stuff he's said and written about himself, the self-regard, the belief that the rules don't apply to him, the fact that even his own staff used to refer to him as....
That's a fair question.
I've already said I've had my misgivings.
What I've got a little more time I'll get to some of them, okay?
But one thing we all seem to miss on occasion is why we even bother to vote.
If it's just to elect the front runner then why bother?
Or is it just to advance a particular party?
or an agenda?
Just going with the front runner reminds me of the guy with dallas green bay niners steelers and patriots jerseys hanging in his closet.
WSS
-
I agree completely. I hate that argument - the "rally around the frontrunner" nonsense. That makes more sense in the general election. But in the primaries? You vote for who you want to see on the ticket, even if they're polling at 5%.
As for Newt, I don't think he's got the right personality for a president. But I don't begrudge you your choice. Those four are pretty lousy choices, and I think they all lose to Obama. A European collapse, or another event, could change everything of course.
I just think the country would be far better off under Romney than Gingrich. Gingrich has a real contempt for people he'd be representing, and expresses it willingly. It's like he's running to be a talk radio host, not a president.
-
Obamao has a real contempt for people he's supposed to be representing, and expresses it willingly.
***********
*Fixed
I'm looking for a Santorum/Gingrich ticket.
They would win.
-
I think our system of government itself has contempt for the people.
rightly so in many cases.
WSS
-
Santorum / Gingrich ticket?
The guy that equated homosexuality to beastiality and the guy that left his ill wife for his mistress, twice.
Good luck getting moderate/independent votes.
-
Santorum / Gingrich ticket?
The guy that equated homosexuality to beastiality and the guy that left his ill wife for his mistress, twice.
Good luck getting moderate/independent votes.
Santorum / Gingrich ticket?
The guy that equated homosexuality to beastiality and the guy that left his ill wife for his mistress, twice.
Good luck getting moderate/independent votes.
Glad to see you democrats suddenly in the moral majority.
WSS
-
Who said I was a Democrat?
You guys and your labeling of those that disagree with you
-
Who said I was a Democrat?
You guys and your labeling of those that disagree with you
And who says you disagree with me?
I just saw a common thread with the people you choose to attack.
You will probably find some variations in ideology here.
Bill clinton probably paved the way for marital infidelity eh?
Besides I don't think the pro gay platform is necessarily a winner.
The current president was smart enough to affect the other side during the campaign.
WSS
-
True true
I just think it is a shame part of your campaign can be to NOT allow equal rights to some people.
Clinton cheating on his wife is bad, I agree, but I think leaving an ill wife with cancer to marry the mistress, twice, is worse.
Some things you can overlook, but that, that is too much.
Christians and conservatives love talking about the sanctity of marriage as a reason gays can't get married. How can anyone take him seriously when Newt wats that?
-
Welcome, rare sane person.
Newt's infidelities don't matter much in the grand scope of things, as Clinton's didn't either. But they do tell you something about the extreme narcissism - among other things - of the people involved, and it's going to hurt you with women voters. Clinton's escapades told you about his personal neediness and his recklessness - the guy was willing to risk his entire presidency over a blowjob. Newt's tell you more about his callousness and enormous ego issues.
Look at the polls - female voters really, really don't like Newt.
-
Welcome, rare sane person.
Newt's infidelities don't matter much in the grand scope of things, as Clinton's didn't either. But they do tell you something about the extreme narcissism - among other things - of the people involved, and it's going to hurt you with women voters. Clinton's escapades told you about his personal neediness and his recklessness - the guy was willing to risk his entire presidency over a blowjob. Newt's tell you more about his callousness and enormous ego issues.
Look at the polls - female voters really, really don't like Newt.
Welcome, rare sane person.
Newt's infidelities don't matter much in the grand scope of things, as Clinton's didn't either. But
Lest we forget the old political axiom:
"Everything before the 'but' is bullshit.
WSS
-
Welcome, rare sane person.
Newt's infidelities don't matter much in the grand scope of things, as Clinton's didn't either. But
Lest we forget the old political axiom:
"Everything before the 'but' is bullshit.
WSS
Lest we forget the old political axiom:
"Everything before the 'but' is bullshit.
WSS
Not really in this case. We're not electing Newt to be our husband. We're electing him to be our president. How he cheats on his wife doesn't really tell us something anything about his position on Iran. Plus, it's a lot easier to get at his position on Iran by listening to what he says about Iran or, even better, the type of foreign policy people he surrounds himself with.
So in the grand scheme of things, for the stuff that matters, it doesn't matter. In the political realm is matters a great deal.
-
Exactly.
Maybe the fact he is a narcissistic sleazeball doesn't affect his ability to lead
But the fact that he is a narcissistic sleazeball will affect his ability to get elected
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Any republican ticket that has Gingrich almost guarantees a second term for Obama. The guy is a stooge.
-
Exactly.
Maybe the fact he is a narcissistic sleazeball doesn't affect his ability to lead
But the fact that he is a narcissistic sleazeball will affect his ability to get elected
Maybe the fact he is a narcissistic sleazeball doesn't affect his ability to lead
But the fact that he is a narcissistic sleazeball will affect his ability to get elected
Please explain your opinion and how you got to this conclusion.
-
Exactly.
Maybe the fact he is a narcissistic sleazeball doesn't affect his ability to lead
But the fact that he is a narcissistic sleazeball will affect his ability to get elected
Exactly.
Maybe the fact he is a narcissistic sleazeball doesn't affect his ability to lead
But the fact that he is a narcissistic sleazeball will affect his ability to get elected
I don't think that his narcissism is a great quality in a leader at all. I think it's a bit frightening, actually. But that doesn't have to do with his affairs so much as the clear evidence of his megalomania. He really thinks he's a historic, transformational figure, and I'm a little afraid of what he thinks he needs to do to cement his place in history.
There's a reason none of his former Republican colleagues seem to be for his candidacy, and many are speaking out against him, sometimes loudly. He was a disaster at everything after the 94 elections.
-
Maybe the fact he is a narcissistic sleazeball doesn't affect his ability to lead
But the fact that he is a narcissistic sleazeball will affect his ability to get elected
*****************************************
You meant to say this about Obamao, right?
If I had to pick someone to run for pres, it would be Rubio. Romney is a rhino and I want him out.
The dem libs want to use "character" as a weapon all of a sudden, because it's politically expedient.
When it was Obamao running for pres, it was NOT politically expedient.
So, there ya go.
With libs, the only principle is the one that benefits their emotionalism.
Which changes again and again. Clinton? Character didn't matter. Edwards? Character doesn't matter.
Newt? CHARACTER REALLY MATTERS .......
Experience in national leadership? Clinton/Obamao/Edwards... doesn't matter.
But Palin and Romney? EXPERIENCE IN NATIONAL LEADERSHIP MATTERS.
And back and forth they go. Whatever gets them gay marriage, murder of unborn and born children, and leglized mary jane wana @@,
thats their "principle" . Otherwise, they have no genuine belief systems. It's just attacking everything that doesn't fit. And anyone who isn't part of their "movements"
-
I'm sure they could have taken their pick for how they wanted to discredit Palin lol
and you act like your party and people who think like you do NEVER take advantage of certain traits and what not to gain the upper hand, that's politics dude, lol. It is pretty damn obvious you have your blinders all the way up. Its actually really funny how you can't see the irony in so many things you say...
I know I am going to regret saying this... but what were Obama's character flaws?
Also, I might regret this too, but why is legalizing weed bad? Before you go and attack my character/intelligence, because, well you know, you're a master debater, I don't smoke weed and I don't think people should but I do have a couple close friends that do.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login