Newt Gingrich on the issues

[public servant]

Seems like the Ron Paul Support Group made this argument when it was revealed that Ron Paul takes money from White Supremacists.

Yeah...but that's different.

 

[dross]

I don't have a problem with draft dodging or deferments.

I do have a problem with voting to send other people's kids to war when you weren't willing to go yourself.

So are you saying that if someone were to take a graduate deferment, they can never vote for a war?

 

[steveh_131]

So are you saying that if someone were to take a graduate deferment, they can never vote for a war?

You can certainly never vote for a draft.

For any war? I'm not sure. He obviously didn't think it was an important enough war to inconvenience himself over. Yet he's more than happy to risk other peoples' lives.

I realize it's not a completely black and white issue. Just pisses me off.

 

[rambone]

So are you saying that if someone were to take a graduate deferment, they can never vote for a war?

Not just "a" war. He favors every war.

He spent his whole career encouraging military intervention, U.N. strikes, foreign entanglements, and policing the world. You would think that for someone so gung-ho to send Americans to die, that he would have dropped what he was doing and answer the call, when it came to him.

Just one of those weird things about Gingrich, Cheney, and a few of their globalist buddies who support these policies, but had better things to do.

 

[dross]

You can certainly never vote for a draft.

For any war? I'm not sure. He obviously didn't think it was an important enough war to inconvenience himself over. Yet he's more than happy to risk other peoples' lives.

I realize it's not a completely black and white issue. Just pisses me off.

Not just "a" war. He favors every war.

He spent his whole career encouraging military intervention, U.N. strikes, foreign entanglements, and policing the world. You would think that for someone so gung-ho to send Americans to die, that he would have dropped what he was doing and answer the call, when it came to him.

Just one of those weird things about Gingrich, Cheney, and a few of their globalist buddies who support these policies, but had better things to do.

I can't figure out if you guys are guilty of sloppy thinking, or your own brand of partisanship.

I could be for one war and not another and I could still be intellectually honest.

I could be for a war, willing to go, but choose to go to graduate school instead.

I could be for every war we've fought so far, but in the future be against a particular war and still be intellectually honest.

I could be for a war, but think the way it's being fought is wrong, use every legitimate means to get out of it, yet still be for a war in the future.

Your assumption appears to be that these guys were for Vietnam, but got out of it because they just didn't want to fight it themselves. They may or may not be true, but it can't be assumed.

Discipline your thinking, or make your points better. This is why you draw ire around here, it's not what you believe, it's this kind of crap.

There are many, many reasons to be against anyone in politics. Stick to what you can defend, not this silliness.

 

[steveh_131]

Your assumption appears to be that these guys were for Vietnam, but got out of it because they just didn't want to fight it themselves. They may or may not be true, but it can't be assumed.

Discipline your thinking, or make your points better. This is why you draw ire around here, it's not what you believe, it's this kind of crap.

There are many, many reasons to be against anyone in politics. Stick to what you can defend, not this silliness.

I can't ask Newt the questions I'd like to ask him. So I have to make assumptions based on his past voting records and based on his statements. And everything I know about him tells me that he will be glad to support a new war whenever possible and that when the call came for him to go himself, he had better things to do.

Sure, I could be wrong. I'm just playing the odds as I see them.

 

[dross]

I can't ask Newt the questions I'd like to ask him. So I have to make assumptions based on his past voting records and based on his statements. And everything I know about him tells me that he will be glad to support a new war whenever possible and that when the call came for him to go himself, he had better things to do.

Sure, I could be wrong. I'm just playing the odds as I see them.

No, you're thinking sloppily again.

Premise 1 - I can't ask Newt the questions I'd like to ask him
Premise 2 - He is likely to vote the way he'd vote in the past, and he is likely to behave in a way somewhat consistent with his past statements.
Premise 3 - During the Vietnam war, he chose to go to graduate school rather than to the war.
Premise 4 - He has supported the wars we've been in during his time in public life

Premise 1 is a given and applies to all politicians, not just Newt.
Premise 2 is solid.
Premise 3 is solid, though trivial.
Premise 4 is solid.

So, you consider it likely that Newt is more likely to support a military option than some other candidates. I think that's a reasonable conclusion.

Premise 3 doesn't even come into play. In order for it to matter, you have to assume facts not in evidence.

Hypothetical case number 1:

A guy seeks a deferment because he plans to go to medical school so he can treat the victims of war.

Hypothetical case number 2:

A guy doesn't seek a deferment but will if he's called because he's cowardly and he also secretly loves war and loves death, but he just wants to send others to fight even though he won't do it himself.

We don't know what's in someone else's heart, so we may think that the first guy is bad and the second guy good. Why? Because we don't have enough information.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because there's not enough information out there that the little we have takes on more importance.

The answer is you don't know some stuff. Stick with what you know.

 

[steveh_131]

Hypothetical case number 1:

A guy seeks a deferment because he plans to go to medical school so he can treat the victims of war.

Hypothetical case number 2:

A guy doesn't seek a deferment but will if he's called because he's cowardly and he also secretly loves war and loves death, but he just wants to send others to fight even though he won't do it himself.

The reality is that he avoided Vietnam so he could study European history.

Does this make him a coward? No. I never said that.

It does, however, bother me that he is so vehemently supportive of our interventionism yet wasn't supportive of it enough to put off his studies of European history for a few years.

Why didn't he?

I see two options. Cowardice or apathy. Either of these things should disqualify him from sending kids off to die.

 

[dross]

The reality is that he avoided Vietnam so he could study European history.

Does this make him a coward? No. I never said that.

It does, however, bother me that he is so vehemently supportive of our interventionism yet wasn't supportive of it enough to put off his studies of European history for a few years.

Why didn't he?

I see two options. Cowardice or apathy. Either of these things should disqualify him from sending kids off to die.

Sloppy thinking. I urge against. Even people who don't quite know what to call it can spot it, and it hurts your credibility.

And if you can only see two options, well, maybe you're doing the best you can.

 

[steveh_131]

And if you can only see two options, well, maybe you're doing the best you can.

Glad to hear any other possibilities.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Glad to hear any other possibilities.

How about because he could?

I have no problem with taking advantage of deferments. Had the draft still been in effect after he was no longer entitled to deferment and he dodged it, I would have a problem.

Only about 8% of adults enter military service. I wonder how many of those quibbling over Newt's deferment in this thread are part of that group?

 

[dross]

I started to list about 100 possibilities, but that's tedious.

Let me tell you something this ol' Army sergeant learned a long time ago. Maintain your discipline of thought. Ask yourself, "What do I know, what do I think I know, what's my best guess, what don't I know."

Once I had a guy that was constantly late. I told him that the next time he was late, I would come down on him like a ton of bricks. Sure enough, a couple of days later he showed up to work late.

Like any hardass NCO worth his salt, I tore into him for being late. When I finally got around to asking him why he was late for the umpteenth time, he told me how his mother was dying and he had to apply for emergency leave to travel back home to the States to see her one last time.

It was a hard lesson in knowing the difference between what I know and what I think I know. Now, 25 years later, that disciplined thinking has stood me well.

I've avoided trouble many, many times in my life by saying, "It appears to me..." or "based on everything I know, I'm almost certain, but here are the factors I don't know..." My family and friends know that if I say something IS, it damned sure IS. And if it does turn out I'm wrong, the first thing I do is own up, and tell those of concern that I was wrong.

Of course, I'm not wrong very much.

I'll say it again. Your thinking is sloppy. That's a bad habit. It hurts your credibility, because others see it in you. Take that for what it's worth.

 

[steveh_131]

How about because he could?

I have no problem with taking advantage of deferments. Had the draft still been in effect after he was no longer entitled to deferment and he dodged it, I would have a problem.

Only about 8% of adults males enter military service. I wonder how many of those quibbling over Newt's deferment are part of that group?

I don't think you understand the context of the question or the thread.

 

[steveh_131]

I started to list about 100 possibilities, but that's tedious.

Let me tell you something this ol' Army sergeant learned a long time ago. Maintain your discipline of thought. Ask yourself, "What do I know, what do I think I know, what's my best guess, what don't I know."

Once I had a guy that was constantly late. I told him that the next time he was late, I would come down on him like a ton of bricks. Sure enough, a couple of days later he showed up to work late.

Like any hardass NCO worth his salt, I tore into him for being late. When I finally got around to asking him why he was late for the umpteenth time, he told me how his mother was dying and he had to apply for emergency leave to travel back home to the States to see her one last time.

It was a hard lesson in knowing the difference between what I know and what I think I know. Now, 25 years later, that disciplined thinking has stood me well.

I've avoided trouble many, many times in my life by saying, "It appears to me..." or "based on everything I know, I'm almost certain, but here are the factors I don't know..." My family and friends know that if I say something IS, it damned sure IS. And if it does turn out I'm wrong, the first thing I do is own up, and tell those of concern that I was wrong.

Of course, I'm not wrong very much.

I'll say it again. Your thinking is sloppy. That's a bad habit. It hurts your credibility, because others see it in you. Take that for what it's worth.

How do you judge a candidate, then? We know next to nothing about these people. We have soundbytes, we have some written statements. We have voting records. Most of it is going to be conjecture, there's no way around it.

Do you ignore everything that isn't written in stone and refuse to take it into consideration when selecting a candidate?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I don't think you understand the context of the question or the thread.

I'm pretty smart. I think I get it.

I gladly did my thing when President Reagan, who had never been in the military, sent me off to do it. I would have done it under President Clinton who was clearly a draft dodger. The qualifications for Commander in Chief are that you be a 35 year old natural born citizen and receive 270 elector college votes. Once sworn in your military service means naught. You are Commmander in Chief.

So back to that 8% thing...

 

[88GT]

You said it. Was I wrong?

Yes.

 

[dross]

How do you judge a candidate, then? We know next to nothing about these people. We have soundbytes, we have some written statements. We have voting records. Most of it is going to be conjecture, there's no way around it.

Do you ignore everything that isn't written in stone and refuse to take it into consideration when selecting a candidate?

My method of evaluation is much, much too sophisticated for most average humans to understand. You've heard of Plato? Socrates? Morons.

Anyway, here's how I choose a candidate:

Primary:

I vote for the person whose positions are closest to my own, unless that person can't beat the Democrat candidate, and my candidate can keep that candidate from winning.

General election: I vote for the Republican.

Here's what doesn't matter much, though it's what everyone always talks about:

Competence
Character
Affairs
Past business dealings
Speaking ability
Knowledge of the issues
Intellect

I could go on, and I could explain why these things, although important, don't really matter much compared to other things.

Did Cain harass those women? Don't know, don't care.
Does Ron Paul wear women's underwear? Don't know, don't care.
Does Mitt Romney secretly answer to the Mormon church? Don't know, don't care. (And btw, I predict here and now that this will come up.)

ANY Republican is better than ANY Democrat for President. And if you think that's a mindless or even a partisan position, then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[KG1]

A perfect example that relates to this discussion and coincedently involves Newt Gingirch and assumptions that were made is the other thread about him dumping his dying wife.

 

[steveh_131]

I vote for the person whose positions are closest to my own, unless that person can't beat the Democrat candidate, and my candidate can keep that candidate from winning.

You seem to make a distinction between his positions and his character, but I see none.

His stated positions are meaningless, the only thing with meaning is what he actually does.

So far his deeds show me that he doesn't have enough philosophical motivation to join up and fight in a war. A war somewhat similar to the wars he is now supporting with other peoples' lives. So it makes me question his real motivation for supporting these wars.

I don't think that's completely irrelevant, nor do I believe it's 'sloppy thinking'. It's taking the information at hand and selecting the most likely outcome, then weighing it against the likely outcomes of the other candidates.

 

[rambone]

Why don't we just google it and find out what Newt said?

Was Newt Gingrich for intervention in Vietnam? Of course he was.



Good Newt, Bad Newt | The Long March Of Newt Gingrich | FRONTLINE | PBS

Later, when, as a hawkish congressman, he would lash out against the "weak-on-defense left" and espouse universal military training, his opponents would investigate Gingrich's own military background.
Sure enough, he found himself listed among a sizable group of noted conservative hawks (including George Will and Richard Perle) who had managed to avoid the war-the "war wimps," as they came to be called. In 1985, he told Jane Mayer of The Wall Street Journal that he still believed that "Vietnam was the right battlefield at the right time." Why didn't he go? "Given everything I believe in, a large part of me thinks I should have gone over," he allowed. But, recovering, he added, "Part of the question I had to ask myself was what difference I would have made."