GingRICH

Status
Not open for further replies.
naisho said:
Part of it is because I surmise that times are changing. This is the year 2k, we're not in the eighties or nineties anymore.
Anecdotally, I figure that moral integrity is not as highly valued as it may have used to be. Look at the media we are exposed to these days, explicit material is easily obtainable privately in comparison to the nineties where your anonymity is dropped to shop in an adult store. Therefore, it feels presumable to hypothesize that individual's judge of characters (especially children of this era) have dramatically fallen from whatever standard it used to be at.

TL;dr : Long story short, it makes sense why people can be more tolerable of adultery/and or corruption - because it's everywhere with us today. That's just my explanation why things may have changed.
Click to expand...

Could be, if the voters in this primary/caucus were younger voters. But they were primarily older.. baby boomers and elderly. These are the people for whom the values of marriage and ethics in politics supposedly matter the most, if the myths are to be believed. (They're the ones complaining about the loose values of the younger generations, after all...) Yet, 40%+ of these, primarily older, Republicans voted for Gingrich.
 
Cowpuppy said:
simply reaffirms my conviction that southerners are idiots and that republicans in general are walking in lockstep right behind them. MORONS ONE AND ALL.
BOMB THE SOUTH. THE WAR IS OVER. PUT THE BOTTLE DOWN AND JOIN THE WORLD. geez what a bunch of idiots. PIGS.
ya all. bomb the south.
Click to expand...

You must be pretty mad, huh? :lol: :roll:
 
Bottom line, anyone who votes a newt into office is an idiot.
 
saywhatkid said:
Not necessarily, but I feel bad for the Republican party if this is their best shot.
Click to expand...

He's a weak candidate. It seems like they don't care about the people, only that they get the absolute power. They're treating it like a high school turf.

How... mature...
 
I'm very disappointed in the results. I didn't vote for Newt.

Just to be clear, I'm not a Republican. In SC, anyone can vote in the primary. They don't restrict it to party affiliation.
 
DeafBadger said:
Could be, if the voters in this primary/caucus were younger voters. But they were primarily older.. baby boomers and elderly. These are the people for whom the values of marriage and ethics in politics supposedly matter the most, if the myths are to be believed. (They're the ones complaining about the loose values of the younger generations, after all...) Yet, 40%+ of these, primarily older, Republicans voted for Gingrich.
Click to expand...

Sounds suspiciously like hacked votes. :P
 
Wirelessly posted (BB Curve 9300)

Beowulf said:
DeafBadger said:
Could be, if the voters in this primary/caucus were younger voters. But they were primarily older.. baby boomers and elderly. These are the people for whom the values of marriage and ethics in politics supposedly matter the most, if the myths are to be believed. (They're the ones complaining about the loose values of the younger generations, after all...) Yet, 40%+ of these, primarily older, Republicans voted for Gingrich.
Click to expand...

Sounds suspiciously like hacked votes. :P
Click to expand...

Do you think they were hacked in IA and NH?
 
More women voted for Gingrich than men - Democrats are going to have to try to discredit Newt from a different angle.
 
DeafCaroline said:
ok, wait, didn't Ginrich get 40% of the vote altogether? so if 36% of women who voted republican voted for him...isn't that less than the number of male votes? Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

No, as Reba pointed out, it wasn't just Republicans voting in the primary. On CNN, they have a pink and blue graph showing male and female votes for Gingrich. The graphs stay parallel for quite some time, then the pink skyrockets.

The impression I got from the graph was that more women not only voted for Gingrich than men, but that more women voted for Gingrich than those that voted for Santorum and Romney.

So yeah, maybe the revenge driven ex wife was a big turn off for a lot of the women voters, or they are just sick of Obama and can see Newt as someone who is stronger than the other candidates.
 
I just asked my wife if she would vote for Newt knowing about his affairs. She asked me "why is that an important factor when considering if someone is qualified to run the country?"

Interesting answer. She went on to say - "it's better that he admitted it, now we know who he is and who we are voting for rather than someone who won't admit it and we find out after they are elected. Is it more important to me that he supports deaf rights, or that he had an affair. Is it more important to me that he can get our country on track, or that he had an affair? I mean sure, what he did was wrong, but he admitted it and was honest about it, but it's not really that much of a priority for how I make decisions who to vote for."
 
Steinhauer said:
I just asked my wife if she would vote for Newt knowing about his affairs. She asked me "why is that an important factor when considering if someone is qualified to run the country?"

Interesting answer. She went on to say - "it's better that he admitted it, now we know who he is and who we are voting for rather than someone who won't admit it and we find out after they are elected. Is it more important to me that he supports deaf rights, or that he had an affair. Is it more important to me that he can get our country on track, or that he had an affair? I mean sure, what he did was wrong, but he admitted it and was honest about it, but it's not really that much of a priority for how I make decisions who to vote for."
Click to expand...

Not that it is a big deal to me but does he, in fact, support deaf rights?
 
Tousi said:
Not that it is a big deal to me but does he, in fact, support deaf rights?
Click to expand...

According to my wife's family - yes. They know him quite well.

In fact, my mother in law said that anything said about a lack of empathy towards the deaf would just be leftist thrashing and political posturing and an outright lie.


I was waiting to edit -- Newt Gingrich was one of the statists (as in statistician ;) ) that pushed for the passing of the ADA under George Bush Sr.
 
Reba said:
Wirelessly posted (BB Curve 9300)

Do you think they were hacked in IA and NH?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think the votes were hacked in IA and NH. Even the results for Ron Paul were in line with polling. Ron Paul also did not campaign as hard in South Carolina from what it sounds like. His campaign's strategy is to go after the lower cost delegates in other states' caucuses.

However, it is difficult to know if voting in South Carolina was as was reported because, apparently the voting machines are electronic without a paper trail. So even if there were a recount, there is no paper trail to go back to. This is what raises questions.

But I don't think the votes for Paul were "hacked away." His results were in line with polling.

Now Gingrich, on the other hand... It is just a surprise and a disappointment, because the issue is not just whether not he sleeps around, it's his ethics violations. He was the only Speaker of the House in history ever removed from his job by his own Party for ethics violations. His party basically said to him, "Stop being more corrupt than us, you're making us look bad."

Read the official papers here: In the Matter of Representative Newt Gingrich | House Committee on Ethics

And 40% of the Republican voters wanted him? Really?

It's just a shocker until I remember that most human beings do things completely opposite from what they say, and rationalize away what they do. Practically everyone does. Some on harmless little things, and some on really serious things. This one was a really serious thing.

Some commentators say that this was a South Carolina thing and Gingrich is going to fade in the long run. I hope so.
 
Steinhauer said:
According to my wife's family - yes. They know him quite well.

In fact, my mother in law said that anything said about a lack of empathy towards the deaf would just be leftist thrashing and political posturing and an outright lie.


I was waiting to edit -- Newt Gingrich was one of the statists (as in statistician ;) ) that pushed for the passing of the ADA under George Bush Sr.
Click to expand...

My father's brother's cousin's friend's nephew says Gingrich doesn't. (That's inspired by the Spaceballs movie line. ;) ) Point is, I can't trust second hand info like this.

We all know someone who knows someone. These days, it's a small country and a small world. Heck, I know someone who knows Tom Brokaw. I know someone who knows Ron Paul. A North Dakota governor used to jog down my street when I was growing up and I talked to him sometimes.

Doesn't make me an authority on a person's political or social position. We can only go to the public record for that.
 
Steinhauer said:
I just asked my wife if she would vote for Newt knowing about his affairs. She asked me "why is that an important factor when considering if someone is qualified to run the country?"

Interesting answer. She went on to say - "it's better that he admitted it, now we know who he is and who we are voting for rather than someone who won't admit it and we find out after they are elected. Is it more important to me that he supports deaf rights, or that he had an affair. Is it more important to me that he can get our country on track, or that he had an affair? I mean sure, what he did was wrong, but he admitted it and was honest about it, but it's not really that much of a priority for how I make decisions who to vote for."
Click to expand...

Honest? Really? He had to be honest because he got busted on it. He publicly shamed President Clinton on the sex scandal while he was having an affair at the same time. He proposed to the mistress before asking his wife for a divorce. Let's not forget the fact that Gingrich asked the Catholic Church to give him an annulment on his marriage that lasted nearly 2 decades.

Also, he tried to pinpoint the blame on the government for the affairs. Not to mention that he said that knew what he was doing was wrong yet he did it anyway. That tells me he doesn't have a moral compass. He will do it just because he can.

In 1983, he demanded that Representatives Daniel Crane and Gerry Studds be expelled for having extramarital relationships with House pages. He campaigned on family values and more. The Republicans can do much, much better than this sorry excuse of a human being.

The fact is, the history does matters. Otherwise, we wouldn't have history classes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top