Republican Nomination for President

Who would you vote for to run for President from the Republican Party?


  • Total voters
    0
Maybe I'm missing something, but Newt's answers during the debates have been much more specific and on point than Romney's, and probably Santorum's as well. Sounds like he just rubs you the wrong way Milo.

I haven't had the chance to catch all umpteen bazillion debates so far, but I think softball questions and wedge issues have hurt the debates overall.

That said, of the serious information I have been able to glean overall, I do think Mitt has provided much more specificity. I have a clearer idea of where he stands on most of the issues, especially pertinent ones like energy, trade relations and taxes.
 
His specifics are crazy. Colonizing the moon. Impeaching the 9th Circuit Court. Sending troops to Syria.

This. Killing the NLRB and EPA on day one. A litany of other stuff that has no realistic chance of happening. When the bzns gets srs, I've heard mostly hollow talking points from Newt.
 
This. Killing the NLRB and EPA on day one. A litany of other stuff that has no realistic chance of happening.

so basically what drives you crazy about Newt is the same thing that drives me crazy about Ron Paul. :putsonflakjacket:
 
Death sentence. Ronny was gawd.

A gawd who quadrupled the national deficit. Then his clown of a VP took over, and the entire Bush family played their own shady parts in the savings and loan crisis. It isn't by quincidence that the last two bank bailouts in our nation were both carried out by Bush's.
 
Much of the debt under Reagan and Bush was a means to winning a war .... and it worked.

Why do we never pay for wars is my question? Bush cut taxes in 01 and 03 while starting wars in both years. The fact that Reagan's corporate tax cuts left businesses like GE playing 0 taxes, had something to do with his large defecits as well.

Is it acceptable to run up debt because of war? Why not raise taxes and pay for the war?
 
Much of the debt under Reagan and Bush was a means to winning a war .... and it worked.

I've never understood this. First of all, it wasn't a real war. Second, my opinion is that diplomacy could've been a lot better. Third, if Reagan is right about capitalism vs communism, then we didn't need to up the stakes to spend them into bankruptcy. They were already headed there. It seems like a ton of waste, and set a bad precedent that defense spending shouldn't be questioned (simply because Reagan is so revered).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
i've never understood this. First of all, it wasn't a real war. Second, my opinion is that diplomacy could've been a lot better. Third, if reagan is right about capitalism vs communism, then we didn't need to up the stakes to spend them into bankruptcy. They were already headed there. It seems like a ton of waste, and set a bad precedent that defense spending shouldn't be questioned (simply because reagan is so revered).

+1,000,000,000

I have never understood the Reagan love in this country.
 
I've never understood this. First of all, it wasn't a real war. Second, my opinion is that diplomacy could've been a lot better. Third, if Reagan is right about capitalism vs communism, then we didn't need to up the stakes to spend them into bankruptcy. They were already headed there. It seems like a ton of waste, and set a bad precedent that defense spending shouldn't be questioned (simply because Reagan is so revered).

It most definitely was a real war. The reason the deficits were less objectionable back then is that we were leveraging against growth.
 
A gawd who quadrupled the national deficit. Then his clown of a VP took over, and the entire Bush family played their own shady parts in the savings and loan crisis. It isn't by quincidence that the last two bank bailouts in our nation were both carried out by Bush's.

If only Carter had been reelected
 
I read that. They do a survey over a one week period mid-month as opposed to measure applications or ADP-type reports on hiring. I'm a little skeptical of their methodology, although as someone else posted there was probably some spike with holiday layoffs.

Don't worry, LG. There's still plenty of time for more people to give up looking for work.
 
I've never understood this. First of all, it wasn't a real war. Second, my opinion is that diplomacy could've been a lot better. Third, if Reagan is right about capitalism vs communism, then we didn't need to up the stakes to spend them into bankruptcy. They were already headed there. It seems like a ton of waste, and set a bad precedent that defense spending shouldn't be questioned (simply because Reagan is so revered).

Basically. I had a professor a while back that originally got his PHD studying communist economics, and asked him what effect the arms race had on the collapse of the USSR, he said maybe moderate at best. CIA estimated GDP was close to 5% the first couple years during Brezhnev's rule in the 1960's, but had already spent the better part of the 70's tumbling to under 2% with extreme stagnation by the time Reagan took office. That was what lead to their collapse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
If only Carter had been reelected

Either way, the point is that Reagan spent way too much, regardless of how bad his predecessor was. A study declassified in 2009 refutes the notion that Reagan's reckless spending was necessary.

....how well did American leaders assess and respond to the Soviet Union's threat? Not well at all, according to a study declassified by the National Security Archives on September 11, 2009. The newly issued assessment highlights just how bad American intelligence functioned over that time period despite the immense resources dedicated to its efforts:

The support for this thesis now appears in a two-volume study, undertaken between 1965 and 1985, on Soviet intentions. In the study, prepared by the BDM Corporation, readers learn from interviews with former Soviet military officers, strategy analysts, and industrial specialists, that American officials "[erred] on the side of overestimating Soviet aggressiveness" and underestimated "the extent to which the Soviet leadership was deterred from using nuclear weapons." Furthermore, the study claims that the American authorities' ineptitude in judging Soviet military intentions "had the potential [to] mislead ... U.S. decision makers in the event of an extreme crisis." Unsurprisingly, the study confirms the role of the military industrial complex in perpetuating the decades-long state of panic. The text shows how "the defense industrial complex, not the Soviet high command, played a key role in driving the quantitative arms buildup" and thereby "led U.S. analysts to ... exaggerate the aggressive intentions of the Soviets."

Students of the Cold War are familiar with the iconic pictures of American schoolchildren ducking under their desks while their parents pored over blueprints for backyard bomb shelters. The American public knew, because their government constantly told them, that the Soviets had their finger on the button. Nuclear annihilation was just a matter of time. But now we learn that this "false consciousness" (thanks Herr Marx) runs counter to the reality. According to the BDM study, "The Soviet military high command understood the devastating consequences of nuclear war and believed that nuclear weapons use had to be avoided at all costs." Baby boomers, feel free to come out from under your desks. And with a little water and a handful of chlorine, your backyard bomb shelter might now work as a pool.

Readers of this new evidence have a choice. They can slander the BDM study as revisionist propaganda or they can interpret it like dispassionate historians. The new release of archival documents constantly changes our understanding of the past. That is how historical knowledge grows over time. The BDM report unhinges one of the basic principles underlying the historiography of the Cold War — the idea that only "mutually assured destruction" prevented nuclear war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.Contrary to what our government and all its vendors wanted us to believe during the Cold War, evidence has now surfaced that the Soviet leaders feared dying in a nuclear conflagration, just as much as Americans did. While the most ardent Cold Warriors ran around screaming "Better Dead than Red," somewhere in the Soviet Union a communist subject might have been whispering "Nuclear annihilation — Nyet!"

The Cold War Fraud by Mark G. Brennan
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Dear God.

I expect to see the Bush's were Nazis post next.

Even better, they were criminals. Neil, Jeb, George W., they all have their names all over the savings in loan crisis.

Like I said earlier, it was not by chance that the last two bank bailouts in our nations history were both done by Bush's.

One of the few things I like about Newt (besides that sweet first name) is that the Bush family hates him.
 
Even better, they were criminals. Neil, Jeb, George W., they all have their names all over the savings in loan crisis.

Like I said earlier, it was not by chance that the last two bank bailouts in our nations history were both done by Bush's.

One of the few things I like about Newt (besides that sweet first name) is that the Bush family hates him.

Just the Bushs........yeah.......you bet
 

VN Store



Back
Top