WritersBeat.com
 

Go Back   WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table

The Intellectual Table Discussions on political topics, social issues, current affairs, etc.


Understanding Trump by Newt Gingrich

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 07-05-2017, 09:11 AM
Jim Colyer's Avatar
Jim Colyer (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,619
Thanks: 18
Thanks 179
Default Understanding Trump by Newt Gingrich


Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House. He is a historian. He distinguishes between the old liberalism and the current Left. Liberalism embraced American values, whereas the Left rejects them. The Left sees the founding fathers as slave owners and America as an imperialist nation that does not deserve to exist. It sees society in terms of racism and sexism. The left decries normal, hard-working Americans as homophobes and Islamophobes. It sees them as bigots. Gingrich sees our nation divided in a way that it has not been since the Civil War. Surely, he has not forgotten Vietnam and the chaos of the late 60s. Still, it is a fact that The Left has gotten control of government, the media and academia. Schools and colleges are indoctrinating students with left-wing propaganda rather than providing them with real knowledge.

Donald Trump was able to overcome media bias and defeat Hillary Clinton's billion dollar machine because he appealed to Americans as one people. Gingrich contends that Trump is the only person who could have done it. His themes of "America First" and "Make America Great Again" resonated with workers and the middle class. Voters were fed up with the establishments of both parties and flocked to Trump's rallies in cities across the country. Bush squandered trillions in the Middle East, while Obama left us 20 trillion in debt and with a depleted military. Obamacare failed, and our infrastructure decayed as billions were poured into defending everyone's borders but our own. Hillary wasted millions on attack ads while Trump used the social media, going directly to the people via facebook and twitter. Trump loves America, and it shows. He loves American workers. He is a great communicator in the same way Ronald Reagan was. He stuck to his themes of illegal immigration, trade deals and rebuilding America. Hillary offered no solution to our country's problems, and her contempt for Trump supporters was palpable, labeling them "a basket of deplorables."

There has never been a president like Donald Trump. He has never held a political office nor has he been a general in the military. He is a businessman. He is a builder, a real estate mogul and TV personality. Still, he has great respect for the military and appointed generals James Mattis as his Secretary of Defense and John Kelly as his Secretary of Homeland Security. Trump himself spent 5 years at the New York Military Academy, where he graduated in 1964, attaining the rank of captain. From there, he attended Fordham University and the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, where he got a bachelor's degree in economics. Americans voted for President Trump because they wanted change. The Washington bureaucracy will continue to resist Trump, both Democrats and Republicans, but he has a mandate. Trump will use his strength as a master negotiator and deal-maker. He will find ways to ensure that the federal government bends to the will of the people. This is his mission. Democrats and news agencies are resisting with fake news and outright lies in an attempt to undermine his agenda. The Left's effort to link Trump with Russia is absurd. We would be better served by an investigation into the felonies of Susan Rice and the murder of Seth Rich. The Left's hatred for Trump is not only unjustified. It is unnatural. The Left is drowning in its hatred.

Mainstream media continues their attacks on Trump: CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, CBS and ABC. President Trump represents the end of their world. The entertainment media, Hollywood and the music industry, have been vicious.

Gingrich devotes the last part of his book to telling what President Trump must do to succeed. He must embrace his roll as commander-in-chief. He must secure our borders and restore law and order to our cities. He must stop the flow of illegal drugs from Mexico and South America and prevent Islamic terrorists from entering our country. He must end sanctuary cities.

Trump can create jobs by cutting taxes, the idea being that by taxing businesses less, they will be able to hire more people. Trump also needs to get rid of regulations that impede businesses. Newt loves telling Trump what he should do.

I was never going to vote again until Trump got into it. I even threw away my voter card and had to get a new one. When Trump pointed to the camera and affirmed "I am your voice!," I felt like he was speaking to me.

__________________
JIM COLYER ALBUMS with PAM, KYMBERLY & ANNIE.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-06-2017, 06:08 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,815
Thanks: 359
Thanks 842
Default

Yeah, Jim, you're a dumbass who swallows the Kool-aid. Both sides are equally sucking your boyfriends dick leaving no cum for you. That's a metaphor, not an insult.

Bleeding out is the sign of the times. The powers that be want it to be divided so they can achieve their aims, and you are sucking up to the challenge here.

The great divide has been manufactured by brilliant political minds and is perpetuated by idiots on both sides.

My advice is not to play the game at all.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-07-2017, 03:32 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,577
Thanks: 196
Thanks 684
Default

Yeah I mean I'm really never going to get gushy about personality cults and slogans but here's a few things.

When I used to be a leftist, and I was pretty extreme, believed in the fabled dictatorship of the proletariate, the means of productions to be transferred to workers, and some vague notion of a stateless society which would somehow be brought about a giant state. Sounds incomprehensible now but that's basically what Marx said and is the main schism between him and the Anarchist movement of his time

The ideas of Stuart Mill et al essentially discounted the endeavours of the individual, claiming that their achievements and discoveries were the result of collective human action. Some inventor somewhere invents something, but without all the dedication of innumerable people before him who, laid out the scientific method, built the universities, wrote the textbooks, created the theories, he wouldn't have been able to. Because discoveries are therefore not created in a vacuum they cannot be claimed solely by the individual and must be considered as the product of a human community global in scope.

Once you start to come round to these types of things you imagine a world in which the primacy of excesses and individual attainment are what is to be destroyed. And you imagine a population whose goals are simply to produce enough to sustain each other, the way primitive tribes used to, but just on an industrialised scaled. Say in the US, in the current paradigm you produce way more than enough food to sustain everyone in the country. So why should anyone go hungry?

So this is the outlook, and funnily enough I remember reading a bunch of literature which said the complete opposite about the media and the Universities. That they had been overhauled and infiltrated by corporations, and were by result rabidly right wing and disposed to the promotion of a vicious laissez faire dog eat dog system. OK so you want collectivism, because to you it means equality, cooperation, and harmony. Yet we all know what really happens when you have to rely on a centralised authority to feed to population.

There's an interesting book called the Shock Doctrine which blames every single proxy war following Vietnam on this Neo-Conservative ideology which is all about opening markets. Free markets, pretty much, was the sole purpose for running around the world causing mayhem, supporting vicious dictatorships (Pinochet, Somoza, Suharto), and regime change.

The irony of this line of thinking is that every single one of these wars is obviously government sponsored. So how is it the free market which causes the war? -- how would companies carry out these agendas without tax dollars? It's always good to ask a leftist this question...

I voted out of the EU, and I'm an ethnic minority. I heard exactly the same sort of stuff, half the country must have been racist, insular, nationalistic deplorables. I call it the leftist tick, because you rarely hear rational arguments but rather knee-jerk pejoratives.

If you have objections towards freedom of movement across Europe it's not racist. To say otherwise is to say that most of the world is racist. Say to South Africa that anyone from the continent can come and go as they please and if you object you're a racist... it's laughable.

Same goes for illegal immigration in America. So long as you agree that there should be an appropriate way to migrate into a country, which is enshrined in law, then upholding that law cannot be racist, or immoral. The only thing to debate is whether the policy is effective in upholding said law. And you can just go down the line with this stuff, I think a lot of people just get angry and virtue signal without checking their basic premises and what they actually mean.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnConstantine For This Useful Post:
bluewpc (07-10-2017)
  #4  
Old 07-07-2017, 03:56 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Online)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,702
Thanks: 334
Thanks 346
Default

This reads like a 6th grade essay version of what you could hear on Hannity any day of the week.

And really, seeing anyone who is this thoroughly brainwashed is kind of disturbing. Doesn't matter which side of the fence they're on.

Otherwise, I refuse to show allegiance to any party or politician or adhere to any political ideology.

It's all bullshit -- and in the long run it has very little effect on what goes on behind the curtain.

So yeah -- good advice -- don't the play the game -- if for no other reason than to avoid embarrassing yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-07-2017, 04:19 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Online)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,702
Thanks: 334
Thanks 346
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
The irony of this line of thinking is that every single one of these wars is obviously government sponsored. So how is it the free market which causes the war? -- how would companies carry out these agendas without tax dollars? It's always good to ask a leftist this question...
It's more about who's behind the government and pulling the strings.

I wouldn't say the "free market" is the immediate cause. And I don't think the rational is necessarily about creating markets either -- not in the short term.

I do think that corporations benefit from war -- big ones, like Raytheon, United Technologies, Lockheed Martin etc. And in the case of Iraq, there was oil at stake -- so add the multinational oil companies. The result is that the tax dollars wind up in their coffers.

So when it comes to war or any military intervention -- do you really believe these companies don't have any influence over the politicians/government? I kind of think they do.

Last edited by Myers; 07-07-2017 at 04:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-07-2017, 04:31 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Online)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,702
Thanks: 334
Thanks 346
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post

Same goes for illegal immigration in America. So long as you agree that there should be an appropriate way to migrate into a country, which is enshrined in law, then upholding that law cannot be racist, or immoral. The only thing to debate is whether the policy is effective in upholding said law. And you can just go down the line with this stuff, I think a lot of people just get angry and virtue signal without checking their basic premises and what they actually mean.
Yeah -- I totally agree with this. Here in the states, the policies on immigration haven't differed all that much from administration to administration.

You either enforce the laws or you don't. To me the debate should be about how easy we make it for people to come here and live and work in ways that benefit the economy overall.

What makes me sick -- especially in the case of Trump -- is the fear mongering and exaggeration and how he plays to his supporters -- everything from "the wall" to the asinine 6 country travel ban. That's all about pandering and politics.

Last edited by Myers; 07-07-2017 at 04:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-07-2017, 05:17 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,577
Thanks: 196
Thanks 684
Default

Originally Posted by Myers View Post
It's more about who's behind the government and pulling the strings.

I wouldn't say the "free market" is the immediate cause. And I don't think the rational is necessarily about creating markets either -- not in the short term.

I do think that corporations benefit from war -- big ones, like Raytheon, United Technologies, Lockheed Martin etc. And in the case of Iraq, there was oil at stake -- so add the multinational oil companies. The result is that the tax dollars wind up in their coffers.

So when it comes to war or any military intervention -- do you really believe these companies don't have any influence over the politicians/government? I kind of think they do.

Oh yeah companies benefit massively from war.

I mean Naomi Klein isn't an idiot, she puts together a great polemic against the profit motive for war. And the revolving door which pretty much inevitably leads to characters heavily invested in those organisations who stand to make gains from war pushing for intervention from positions of political power (Cheney, Rumsfeld).

The elephant in the room is that these companies making money from war are government contractors. Their customer is the state. So it's not a free market scenario by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, in a free market scenario it's impossible, because intervention isn't a profitable model, it's a massive net loss in every case which is why it has to be shouldered with tax money.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-07-2017, 06:02 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Online)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,702
Thanks: 334
Thanks 346
Default

Yeah. Theoretically, there might be a long term "profit" if we were really were able to establish markets and trading partners or relationships that give us a security advantage.

That's the way it's sold at least -- along with the standard baloney about establishing democracy etc. But has that EVER happened in the Post WWll era??

And I think Eisenhower did a pretty good job making the case against the profit motive for war -- and that was before any of these giant multi-national defense contractors even existed...

Last edited by Myers; 07-07-2017 at 07:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-07-2017, 08:45 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,807
Thanks: 329
Thanks 643
Default

Originally Posted by Myers View Post
What makes me sick -- especially in the case of Trump -- is the fear mongering and exaggeration and how he plays to his supporters -- everything from "the wall" to the asinine 6 country travel ban. That's all about pandering and politics.
Obama and Jimmy Peanut Farmer both had similar immigration/travel bans. Of course, it was a different political climate for Jimmy.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-07-2017, 09:04 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Online)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,702
Thanks: 334
Thanks 346
Default

I'm talking about the motivation and the politics behind the ban.

Trump talked about a Muslim ban at his rallies and everyone cheered. The 6 country travel band was the closest he could get to fulfilling his campaign promise.

He also lied and said there was no refugee screening process at all -- or that could have just been ignorance. There is an 18-24 month screening process in place. Either way, his supporters believed him.

The rational behind the ban was they needed three months to review the refugee screening process so he could implement "extreme vetting." He's had 5 months now -- so where is it?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-07-2017, 09:15 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,807
Thanks: 329
Thanks 643
Default

I don't know if it got shelved when the 9th Circuit struck it down, and now he's looking at it again, or what.

As to your other comments, that is a less than sophomoric effort by Newton.

You get a Newt by crossing a Slippery Ell with a Political Chameleon.

He's still living off his Contract On America glory days
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-07-2017, 09:30 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Online)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,702
Thanks: 334
Thanks 346
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
I don't know if it got shelved when the 9th Circuit struck it down, and now he's looking at it again, or what.
I'm not sure what you mean. The Supreme Court temporarily lifted the suspension of the ban from the lower district courts until they can issue a final decision -- I guess in October. That was surprising to me -- I didn't even know they could do that.

Regardless -- the review of the vetting process is totally independent of the ban. If it was so urgent and vital to security, they could have been working on that from day one and have it place.

And I'm not one of these people who was so sure the ban was unconstitutional. He may have the authority to call for a ban -- but just because it's legal doesn't mean it isn't stupid.

And yeah -- I think Newt's a weasel. I think he's doing what he thinks he needs to do to stay relevant -- and that includes kissing Donald Trump's ass.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-07-2017, 10:19 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,807
Thanks: 329
Thanks 643
Default

The 9th circuit is the lower court that struck it down. In between then and now, when the upper (supreme) court re-instated parts but not all of the ban I don't know if anything was done, is what I'm saying.

I don't think it was within the lower courts or upper courts Article III purview, nor do I think it was unconstitutional. Although tRUMP was playing to baser instincts, I think he was correct to a large degree.

I also think the House could impeach and the senate could vote to remove these judges, but for whatever reason they choose to not rein in the courts.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-07-2017, 10:26 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Online)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,702
Thanks: 334
Thanks 346
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
The 9th circuit is the lower court that struck it down. In between then and now, when the upper (supreme) court re-instated parts but not all of the ban I don't know if anything was done, is what I'm saying.
OK -- but what I'm saying is the process of implementing the new extreme vetting is independent of the ban.

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
Although tRUMP was playing to baser instincts, I think he was correct to a large degree.
I think it's arbitrary -- especially when you look at where the majority of the terrorists have been from.

But if the rational is improving how we vet out possible terrorists -- then let's get on with it. If Trump was telling the truth -- then we would no longer need the ban.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-07-2017, 10:29 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Online)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,702
Thanks: 334
Thanks 346
Default

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer View Post

Trump can create jobs by cutting taxes, the idea being that by taxing businesses less, they will be able to hire more people. Trump also needs to get rid of regulations that impede businesses.
There's little historical evidence that shows either of these things create or preserve jobs more than temporarily.

Regulations can reduce jobs in certain industries, but they create new jobs in others. That doesn't mean the pain isn't real when people lose their jobs -- but the idea that regulations are a job killer overall is a myth. If you lost a job at a company that made lead additives, then someone else got a job making catalytic converters. It's the same today with the coal vs. renewable energy industries.

You need to look at the net gains or parity for the economy -- AND the environment -- but if you mention the latter, the average Trump supporter is going to think you're some kind of tree hugger.

And lowering taxes doesn't automatically provide a good business reason to expand or hire people -- so it's just as likely or more so that corporations will distribute the profits to shareholders and the guys at the top. They are still going to outsource even if the benefits are marginal. Every single penny counts -- and companies aren't in the business of providing jobs because it's the right thing to do.

But here's the thing. At best -- economists are divided on these issues. And I'm betting if you bothered to look into it, you would be ambivalent too. Or you could just have another tall, cool, colorful glass of Kool-Aid...

Last edited by Myers; 07-07-2017 at 01:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-10-2017, 12:29 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,577
Thanks: 196
Thanks 684
Default

Originally Posted by Myers View Post
Yeah. Theoretically, there might be a long term "profit" if we were really were able to establish markets and trading partners or relationships that give us a security advantage.
Sure. But that's the thing war is so risky and unpredictable economically tax is the only way to outsource this risk.

Otherwise no private company would put up its own money to invade a far away land with no guarantee of success, in fact a pretty good chance of getting stuck in an intractable bloody quagmire, perhaps for decades, whilst simultaneously destroying their reputation at home.

But hey, if it doesn't matter whether the mission is a success, only that you show up and provide a service, and you have a government contract which guarantees massive profits...
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-10-2017, 05:02 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Online)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,702
Thanks: 334
Thanks 346
Default

I think we're both saying the same thing...
Reply With Quote
Reply

  WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tweet Like Trump Jim Colyer Lyrics 0 09-06-2016 01:38 PM
Paul Ryan’s Endorsement of Donald Trump Torontohockeyre Non-Fiction 0 06-03-2016 05:18 AM
Donald Trump & Bernie Sanders FOX Debate Makes Millions for Charities Torontohockeyre Non-Fiction 0 05-27-2016 04:37 AM
Trump and Cruz Going to Battle against Harry Reid Torontohockeyre Free Writing 2 03-28-2016 06:56 AM
Donald Trump Goes to War with NBC’s and WSJ’s Pseudo Polls Torontohockeyre Non-Fiction 0 03-18-2016 11:54 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:21 AM.

vBulletin, Copyright © 2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.