Newt Gingrich on the issues

[dross]

To win a primary you only have to edge out your competition. You could win with 20% of the vote if your opponents only had 19%.

To win a general you need to win the Independents. The lever pullers for the Red Team and Blue Team will not change their vote no matter what the candidate's record or platform. Win the swing voters and you win the election.

Does Newt have what it takes? Do enough Republicans believe his rhetoric? Can he draw in the Independents with that record of his? Time will tell.

Newt has good points and bad points, just like every other candidate.

He understands policies and issues better than anyone. He can get some things done. Many of your criticisms of him are justified. That doesn't disqualify him.

If you just want to talk baseball, okay. Newt's strengths are that he's experienced, he has command of the issues, he's a good debater, and he appeals to the conservative base, including the social conservatives. He's not anyone's best pick, but he's got a lot of positives, mostly in the primary.

In the general he has two major problems. One, the independents don't like his existing negatives, though he's tried to soften that over the years.

The other problem is that the press will kill him, and dredge up lots of things from the past. He's easy to vilify in the general.

Personally, I like that he's smart, he has a command of the issues, he'd destroy Obama in a debate, and he's probably the best sound bite generator of the bunch. I also think in his heart of hearts (and of course this is just conjecture on my part) he's relatively fiscally conservative, though he's a whore like all of them are, and has a record of jumping around.

But most of that is irrelevant, for as I've wasted many electronic bytes explaining, either a Democrat or a Republican is going to be the next President and the party they belong to is much more important than their individual attributes, because like it or not, that's how our system works.

There.

 

[IndyYakr]

I just want to see Rush get into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame...

Rush are all three Canadians - so they dang sure can't tell me who to vote for...

Oh - wait, you mean Mr. Limbaugh...

(smirk)

I second that notion brother!

 

[Zoub]

Oh I was talking about Newt Gingrich. This is a very disjointed conversation.

That is not how dross was addressing his questions to you.

He was talking about POP, Purity of Paul. It is like POE only different. Maybe instead of Rambone we will call you Mandrake?

 

[gunowner930]

I'm still supporting Paul, but Newt is easily the best speaker/communicator of the current candidates. I think Newt would make Obama look like a complete fool in the debates.

 

[88GT]

either a Democrat or a Republican is going to be the next President and the party they belong to is much more important than their individual attributes, because like it or not, that's how our system works.

There.

QFT. And the precise reason even Paul as president won't bring a whole lot of change.

 

[CarmelHP]

That is not how dross was addressing his questions to you.

He was talking about POP, Purity of Paul. It is like POE only different. Maybe instead of Rambone we will call you Mandrake?

Go ahead, but you'll have to answer to the Coca-Cola Company.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUAK7t3Lf8s[/ame]

 

[KG1]

I've tried to take an objective look at some of the mountain of information dumped in the OP by actually reading some of the links provided and the conclusion i've gotten from most of it is that it's not quite as ominous as it is being made out to be.

If you actually take the time to read through some of it and take in the context and see other statements that were made by Gingrich instead of just the ones that were cherry picked for the purpose of this thread then you you would get the total picture and be in a better position to make an informed decision on what you think of Newt Gingrich. Of course that would require a bit of work to go through all that and sometimes I think these types of threads are presented by the OP in such a manner that they think you won't actually take the time to do it and therefore take their spin on it.

Conclusion: Just like any other candidate I agree with some of what Gingrich brings to the table and some of it I do not.

 

[88GT]

and the conclusion i've gotten from most of it is that it's not quite as ominous as it is being made out to be.

Not surprising at all.

 

[rambone]

You guys are welcome to elaborate and be specific.

Maybe you feel NAFTA doesn't erode our sovereignty, violate our constitution, and suck manufacturing out of America.

That right there was a bigger blow to America than Obamacare will be.

 

[88GT]

You guys are welcome to elaborate and be specific.

Maybe you feel NAFTA doesn't erode our sovereignty, violate our constitution, and suck manufacturing out of America.

That right there was a bigger blow to America than Obamacare will be.

Explain to me how you can be opposed to free trade in one instance and support it generically every other time.

 

[rambone]

Explain to me how you can be opposed to free trade in one instance and support it generically every other time.

Free trade can be achieved without an unconstitutional power grab by the globalists.

 

[KG1]

Free trade can be achieved without an unconstitutional power grab by the globalists.

Free trade can also be achieved thru an Legislative-Executive agreement which is what NAFTA has been classified as and not a treaty. While there has been much debate regarding the Constitutionality there has never been any ruling by the courts stating that it is unconstitutional.

Loathe to intervene in foreign policy when Congress and the president are in agreement, the Supreme Court consistently has supported the constitutionality of these agreements as far back as Field v. Clark (1892). The choice to pursue a treaty as opposed to an agreement is one the Court leaves to the discretion of the president and Congress.

Legislative‐executive Agreements

 

[88GT]

Free trade can be achieved without an unconstitutional power grab by the globalists.

What was the unconstitutional power grab?

 

[dross]

What was the unconstitutional power grab?

You don't know? It's obvious. Everything in the Constitution is obvious. Just read it. That's how you'll know. Then you'll know when an unconstitutional law is passed, or when the Supreme Court makes an unconstitutional ruling.

There's no gray area or interpretation needed. No system. The system is that laws are passed and rulings are made and if those laws or rulings differ from the clearly obvious written words and meanings of the Constitution, then it's unconstitutional.

"But reasonable people, including people very close in ideology often disagaree," you say? Didn't you read above? It's obvious and clear.

Or you could just ask several people here. They'll explain how obvious it is.

 

[KG1]

What was the unconstitutional power grab?

Well he can choose to classify NAFTA as a power grab if he wants, that's up to his opinion but it has never been ruled as unconstitutional.

 

[rambone]

Are you guys seriously defending NAFTA?

 

[88GT]

Are you guys seriously defending NAFTA?

Are you incapable of answering a simple question?

I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of NAFTA. I was hoping you could shed some light on the issue. But I see that's not gonna happen.

 

[rambone]

What was the unconstitutional power grab?

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reserves to Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

NAFTA took power away from Congress -- and therefore the American people -- and gave it away to Binational Panels and International Courts made up of foreigners. NAFTA supersedes American courts and infringes and overrides their jurisdiction. It leaves the states without a standing to redress grievances.


Here's a snippet about why NAFTA does the opposite of "free" trade.

NAFTA: it's not just about trade!

NAFTA was supposed to create jobs and prosperity through "free trade," just as the name of the agreement indicates. But NAFTA was never about establishing genuine free trade, which would entail virtually unregulated exchange of goods across borders. NAFTA was based on regulated trade, with our trade policy no longer shaped by Congress but by the new transnational regulatory bureaucracy NAFTA created.

Describing the bureaucracy of NAFTA:

America First, NAFTA Never -- Pat Buchanan

Why does the Populist Right abhor NAFTA? Because NAFTA epitomizes all that repels us in the modern state. Though advertised as “free trade,” it is anti-freedom, 1,200 pages of rules, regulations, laws, fines, commissions–plus side agreements–setting up no fewer than 49 new bureaucracies. Henry Kissinger is right: NAFTA is not really a trade treaty at all, but the architecture of the New World Order. Like Maastricht, it is part of a skeletal structure for world government. At its root is an abiding faith in the superior wisdom of a global managerial class–our would–be Lords of the Universe.

Dr. NWO himself campaigned for NAFTA and said this about the agreement:

"What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system … a first step toward a New World Order." -- Henry Kissinger, July 18, 1993, Los Angeles Times
​

Newt Gingrich says NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3GcnHe9wDY[/ame]

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.

Buchanan was all over this issue.

"...[NAFTA] is a ship that carries in its cargo the virus of globalism and the bacillus of statism. Populists and conservatives ought to tow it out beyond the 12-mile limit with a long rope and blow it out of the water." -- Pat Buchanan


​

NAFTA tribunals supersede the U.S. Supreme Court. Its globalicious.

Tribunals trump U.S. courts: NAFTA's unconstitutional courts are beginning to override our freedom and independence

Most Americans are completely unaware that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) established courts called tribunals to adjudicate conflicts between commercial enterprises and the national, state, and local governments of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. These NAFTA tribunals operate under the aegis of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and the World Bank's International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes. And they already are having a profound and subversive impact on our legal system and are set to completely erode our national sovereignty.

"Their meetings are secret," DePalma wrote. "Their members are generally unknown. The decisions they reach need not be fully disclosed. Yet the way a small group of international tribunals handles NAFTA's secret tribunals operate under the aegis of the World Bank (above) and the UN. Former Congressman Abner Mikva (inset) now serves as a NAFTA judge, along with lawyers from many other countries. disputes between investors and foreign governments has led to national laws being revoked, justice systems questioned and environmental regulations challenged. And it is all in the name of protecting the rights of foreign investors under the North American Free Trade Agreement."

Another good article about the effects of NAFTA: The high price of 'free' trade

 

[Boiled Owl]

Thanks for posting Rambone. I enjoy it. Even if the detractors pile on. I guess if I didn't I wouldn't click on the post.

Don't pander to them, it's the old joke of wrestling with a hog, you both get dirty, and the hog enjoys it.

 

[rambone]

Well he can choose to classify NAFTA as a power grab if he wants

And I will.

Are you incapable of answering a simple question?

I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of NAFTA. I was hoping you could shed some light on the issue. But I see that's not gonna happen.

Sorry I didn't realize you wanted to have a serious discussion. You've been sniping me for the majority of this thread.

You don't know? It's obvious. Everything in the Constitution is obvious. Just read it. That's how you'll know. Then you'll know when an unconstitutional law is passed, or when the Supreme Court makes an unconstitutional ruling.

There's no gray area or interpretation needed. No system. The system is that laws are passed and rulings are made and if those laws or rulings differ from the clearly obvious written words and meanings of the Constitution, then it's unconstitutional.

"But reasonable people, including people very close in ideology often disagaree," you say? Didn't you read above? It's obvious and clear.

Or you could just ask several people here. They'll explain how obvious it is.

What's your take Dross? Practically, Constitutionally, Logically... Do we need international bureaucracies to create "free" trade?