Newt Gingrich: Will You Vote For Him?

[Papist]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1328050478' post='2378540']
That's "ideological purity.'' Nothing intellectual about it.

I hear your point, and might be inclined to agree were not Obama's agenda so destructive.
Mostly I respectfully disagree that there will be absolutely [i]no[/i] difference between a Newt or Mitt presidency and an Obama presidency. Yes, the difference will for the most part (especially under Romney) be woefully and pathetically inadequate, but it would still be better than four more years of Obama.

The way I see it, it's about limiting damage. There's a fire spreading and destroying the building and everything inside. You have the options of containing it somewhat and limiting its spread, preserving a little bit of the property in the building, or you can do nothing and just let the whole beaver dam thing burn to the ground, on the basis that too much will be destroyed under the first option.

Neither option is pleasant, but the second is still preferable. Especially when you consider that two or three Supreme Court justices will likely be nominated in the next four years.
[/quote]

Yes. The pickens are slim.

[img]http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/395710_230206657064102_211865305564904_531702_406753430_n.jpg[/img]

[Aloysius]

ugh, every 4 years it's a life or death choice between the "lesser of two evils" where the democrat is painted as being a million times worse than the republican (when they're actually not much different) just to try to convince you to accept a republican who will do nothing but continue to increase federal power and continue to prop up tyranny around the world (in the form of the dictatorships we prop up through foreign aid and sanctions), doing nothing to really change anything.

I'd rather have another four years of Obama to fight against than four years that continues to newter any legitimate alternative movement. pun intended, lol, but Mitt is also a newtering of the movement for liberty. at least with Obama we're motivated to mobilize and fight the fires; better the fire you can see and fight than the fire that you're actually pouring gasoline (votes) onto.

and what we really need to do is to start advocating for Ron Paul's "We The People" act, because as it is now the whole pro-life movement is held hostage and made subservient to the Republican party on the threat of judge nominations. the Federal courts must be stripped of jurisdiction over social issues like abortion so that we no longer have the tyranny of 9 judges deciding social issues for the whole nation.

will I vote for Newt? let's let this video answer (note: the answer is at the end of the video)
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OV8RSgCr2g&feature=player_embedded[/media]

I guess I could be persuaded if something good got into the party platform, though. I'll try to work within the system, but it's a hard sell if it looks like we're just going to get more of the same.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Aloysius

[Winchester]

I'm done falling for the "but he's better than the other guy" excrement.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Winchester

[qfnol31]

I don't think that voting third party has ever worked, practically speaking, and as yet, the Republican party hasn't changed in quite a long time. What makes you think that Paul will be the difference?

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1328153705' post='2379399']
I don't think that voting third party has ever worked, practically speaking
[/quote]
As Dr. Paul says, "You gotta [i]believe [/i]in it, you know?"
As long as people continue not to vote for a third party because "it won't work", they continue a self-fulfilling prophesy. Come November, I will vote for the candidate whom I have discerned to be best fit for the job, despite the letters following his name.

[qfnol31]

Well 100 years ago I might have believed in Teddy Roosevelt...he's the last person who really had a shot.

Edit, this was supposed to be funny.

Edited February 2, 2012 by qfnol31

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1328157239' post='2379450']
Well 100 years ago I might have believed in Teddy Roosevelt...he's the last person who really had a shot.
[/quote]
That's only because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance...because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance...[size=2]because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance...because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance[/size]...[size=1]because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance...........[/size]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1328153705' post='2379399']
I don't think that voting third party has ever worked, practically speaking, and as yet, the Republican party hasn't changed in quite a long time. What makes you think that Paul will be the difference?
[/quote]
[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1328157029' post='2379446']
As Dr. Paul says, "You gotta [i]believe [/i]in it, you know?"
As long as people continue not to vote for a third party because "it won't work", they continue a self-fulfilling prophesy. Come November, I will vote for the candidate whom I have discerned to be best fit for the job, despite the letters following his name.
[/quote]
[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1328157239' post='2379450']
Well 100 years ago I might have believed in Teddy Roosevelt...he's the last person who really had a shot.

Edit, this was supposed to be funny.
[/quote]
[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1328157437' post='2379452']
That's only because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance...because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance...[size=2]because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance...because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance[/size]...[size=1]because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance...........[/size]
[/quote]

Or, as a personal statement of disgust with a corrupt, evil system, withdraw your consent and refuse to vote. Refuse to pick which thief you want to rob you. Refuse to pick which murderer you want to kill more people overseas and at home.
I got sick of the system, so that's what I did. I refused to vote in the Canadian federal election. Didn't even spoil a ballot, I chose to be part of the ever-growing percentage of non-voters. Did it make a difference? Not even the tiniest bit. (On the other hand, are you familiar with the percentage chance that your single vote actually does make a difference?) But to me it's a statement that I no longer want to take part in this system being forced on us at gunpoint. I'm not ok with the lying and corruption and theft and violence, so I won't entertain any of the 'allowed' status quo possibilities.
It was a personal choice, and I don't think it is wrong to vote, just as I don't believe it was wrong of me not to vote.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1328158559' post='2379463']
Or, as a personal statement of disgust with a corrupt, evil system, withdraw your consent and refuse to vote. Refuse to pick which thief you want to rob you. Refuse to pick which murderer you want to kill more people overseas and at home.
I got sick of the system, so that's what I did. I refused to vote in the Canadian federal election. Didn't even spoil a ballot, I chose to be part of the ever-growing percentage of non-voters. Did it make a difference? Not even the tiniest bit. (On the other hand, are you familiar with the percentage chance that your single vote actually does make a difference?) But to me it's a statement that I no longer want to take part in this system being forced on us at gunpoint. I'm not ok with the lying and corruption and theft and violence, so I won't entertain any of the 'allowed' status quo possibilities.
It was a personal choice, and I don't think it is wrong to vote, just as I don't believe it was wrong of me not to vote.
[/quote]
Fair enough. I don't see myself taking that route, but I mean, it's just as much your right not to vote, if that's what you discern to be what your conscience is guiding you to do.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1328130228' post='2379101']
I'd rather have another four years of Obama to fight against than four years that continues to newter any legitimate alternative movement. pun intended, lol, but Mitt is also a newtering of the movement for liberty. at least with Obama we're motivated to mobilize and fight the fires; better the fire you can see and fight than the fire that you're actually pouring gasoline (votes) onto.

[/quote]

So, you're willing to continue the Obama-Sebellius machine's war against our religion out of some misguided sense of ideological purity?

Just remember one thing: those who cry "the whole loaf or none!" often end up with none.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1328157437' post='2379452']
That's only because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance...because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance...[size=2]because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance...because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance[/size]...[size=1]because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance...........[/size]
[/quote]

In the US, the current structure works against third parties because most states have a "winner-take-all" system of awarding their electoral votes (the exceptions being Maine and Nebraska, which award the at-large 2 electotral votes to the winner of the state, and the others are awarded based on the winner in each congressional district). There is no proportional representation like in Europe or runoff elections like in many local elections. Now, there is a movement among states to award their electors based on the national popular vote, but all legislation to achieve that has a built-in provision that it will not take effect until the states that agree to it have a combined total of 270 or more electoral votes.

Another thing that third parties would fall prey to would be that if one garnered enough electoral votes to deny any one candidate an electoral vote majority, then the decision would then be made by Congress, and for President, it would be made by the US House not by a straight vote, but rather by a vote by states (so to win a state, one would need to get the majority of the congressmen in a state delegation). The Vice President would be chosen by a straight majority vote of the senators. (This was the situation faced by Ross Perot in 1992.) So, barring defections from the major parties to a third party, a third party would also need to make a serious attempt to win enough congressional seats (in the case of the Senate, it would take multiple election cycles).

More often than not, third party/independent candidacies/movements are not permanent because they either "fizzle out" or one of the major parties will take up their cause:

- the Democrats of 1896 took up the Populists' silver standard;
- Wilson's Democrats took up many of the "Bull Moose" issues after 1912;
- George Wallace Democrats in the South (1968, the last time a third party garnered electoral votes and threatened to send the election to the Congress) gradually ended up in the Republican party
- conversely, liberal Republican John Anderson's (1980) followers gradually gravitated toward the Democrats

Ross Perot's effect was to force both major parties to committing to deficit reduction in the 1990s, which ended up happening by divided government and a robust economy/stock market (driven in large part by Y2K spending and the tech revolution).

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1328158735' post='2379469']
Fair enough. I don't see myself taking that route, but I mean, it's just as much your right not to vote, if that's what you discern to be what your conscience is guiding you to do.
[/quote]
That's basically it. I was no longer comfortable voting.
Although it's not exactly the same here as in the US. I did say to myself at the time that I might have voted if there were a Canadian Ron Paul to vote for. I'm not sold even on that though, so there ya go. There's no such thing as being politically pro-life in Canada...

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1328160615' post='2379486']
So, you're willing to continue the Obama-Sebellius machine's war against our religion out of some misguided sense of ideological purity?

Just remember one thing: those who cry "the whole loaf or none!" often end up with none.
[/quote]
I don't see the other Republican candidates as offering me any bit of a loaf. they are offering my Church less of a cross, but look how good this latest Obama-Sellius cross is actually being for the Church! We have bishops standing up with backbone... nothing could be better for the Church at this point than to stand up on principle and close down its institutions so as to obey God rather than men. we have long been complacent and lukewarm about things, this is a shock, a jolt, that will help the Church make saints.

The Obama-Sebellius war machine can be fought against through things like the Supreme Court. To support a lesser of two evils because we are scared of persecution from Obama is simply unacceptable in my opinion. It's selfish and wrong. We should stand up strong against the persecution, but it's absolutely wrong to side with someone who will do so much bad for the country in order to avoid the persecution that we are called to.

I actually think the Supreme Court is likely to side with conscience provisions here. Obama likely knows that and wants to look good to his base by fighting the big bad Catholic Church, and the Supreme Court will eventually 1st ammendment that croutons.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Aloysius

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1328204151' post='2379609']
I don't see the other Republican candidates as offering me any bit of a loaf. they are offering my Church less of a cross, but look how good this latest Obama-Sellius cross is actually being for the Church! We have bishops standing up with backbone... nothing could be better for the Church at this point than to stand up on principle and close down its institutions so as to obey God rather than men. we have long been complacent and lukewarm about things, this is a shock, a jolt, that will help the Church make saints.

The Obama-Sebellius war machine can be fought against through things like the Supreme Court. To support a lesser of two evils because we are scared of persecution from Obama is simply unacceptable in my opinion. It's selfish and wrong. We should stand up strong against the persecution, but it's absolutely wrong to side with someone who will do so much bad for the country in order to avoid the persecution that we are called to.

I actually think the Supreme Court is likely to side with conscience provisions here. Obama likely knows that and wants to look good to his base by fighting the big bad Catholic Church, and the Supreme Court will eventually 1st ammendment that croutons.
[/quote]Al, that sounds like saying that if you had a choice, you'd vote in Diocletian just so that the Church could have more martyrs.

There are other grave evils we hope to correct, and some of them were slowly corrected under the previous president.

Edited February 2, 2012 by qfnol31

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1328157239' post='2379450']
Well 100 years ago I might have believed in Teddy Roosevelt...he's the last person who really had a shot.

Edit, this was supposed to be funny.
[/quote]
Yeah, Teddy was kind of a tyrannical nutcase...