JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Daniel Michael ben Avraham on December 11, 2011, 07:47:42 AM
-
Given the sad state of affairs with the current lineup of Republican candidates I have decided to take a look at all of them on equal footing again. I am no longer going to consider the "electability" factor that so many take into account first. At this point I truly do not trust the electability of the so called front runners; besides, don't Newt and Romney both make us want to vomit. Will we be able to honestly cast a vote for either of those candidates and sleep at night. The honest answer to that question is simply HELL NO. The truth is the most important issue is Israel. There is no greater litmus test of a candidates morality than their support for Israel. They either stand with Hashem or they do not. Support of the Jewish people and not necessarily the government of Israel is what tells me what type of person they truly are. Consider the following videos and tell me what you think. I believe Santorum is the only candidate other than Huckabee that has ever expressed the kind of pro Jewish view we are looking for in a candidate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZJsq_hdlBU
-
Here is another one to take a look at.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMCj-5-Hef8
-
Given the sad state of affairs with the current lineup of Republican candidates I have decided to take a look at all of them on equal footing again. I am no longer going to consider the "electability" factor that so many take into account first.
What good is a candidate that has no chance of gaining the nomination or office.
-
I wish we had a really right wing possibility but we don't.
-
If the front runner is going to be a RINO or something like a Newt are you honestly prepared to cast that vote for their nomination? I will not. Besides things have swung so far one way and the other that I do not believe in the electability of any of the so called front runners. It seems like a big media smoke screen to me. Remember what happened with BHO. Who would have thought that a socialist leftist black muslim of the appeasement type would have won after 911, but it happened. Do will not count any of them out at this point. If they stay in the fight who knows what can happen.
-
If the front runner is going to be a RINO or something like a Newt are you honestly prepared to cast that vote for their nomination?
My vote doesn't count in the primaries. By the time it gets to Texas, the nominee will already be decided. If one of them is a sure win already I may just vote for Bachmann since it won't matter anyway. Or if there's still a contention, which is very unlikely, I'll vote for whoever of the Rinos is least horrible if I can figure that out.
I will not. Besides things have swung so far one way and the other that I do not believe in the electability of any of the so called front runners.
I will vote for the Republican nominee.
It seems like a big media smoke screen to me. Remember what happened with BHO. Who would have thought that a socialist leftist black muslim of the appeasement type would have won after 911, but it happened. Do will not count any of them out at this point. If they stay in the fight who knows what can happen.
It's really sad that the American people are so stupid as to vote in a Muslim.
-
It's not that they're stupid so much as they don't care.
-
My vote doesn't count in the primaries. By the time it gets to Texas, the nominee will already be decided. If one of them is a sure win already I may just vote for Bachmann since it won't matter anyway. Or if there's still a contention, which is very unlikely, I'll vote for whoever of the Rinos is least horrible if I can figure that out.
I will vote for the Republican nominee.
It's really sad that the American people are so stupid as to vote in a Muslim.
I didn't mean not voting for the Republican nominee once selected. I meant not voting for the supposed front runner Republican nominee for the Republican candidate elections not the presidential elections. Gosh, I would never vote for BHO!
-
At this point Santorum has no chance. Unless the Trump debate really happens and he does well he will continue to have no shot and he will drop out after Iowa unless he comes in 3rd.
It is nice to see that the recent Gingrich news has increased the traffic on the English forum!
-
I didn't mean not voting for the Republican nominee once selected. I meant not voting for the supposed front runner Republican nominee for the Republican candidate elections not the presidential elections. Gosh, I would never vote for BHO!
My state has very little power in deciding this, most of the runners will drop out of the race before it gets here.
-
I don't see how Santorum is any improvement at all.
-
I don't see how Santorum is any improvement at all.
So, you didn't view the videos then.
View the videos and explain to me how his views on Israel are not a vast improvement over what the other candidates are touting.
-
So, you didn't view the videos then.
View the videos and explain to me how his views on Israel are not a vast improvement over what the other candidates are touting.
Santorum says nice things and even said in the debate that the "West Bank" is still Israel's sovereign land. The problem with him is that he has lost a lot of elections. He is not electable.
-
Well, at least he can be supported by merit of his principals. I just do not like the idea of supporting a candidate that has questionable principles simply because the media thinks they are "electable." It gives me a bad taste in my mouth (so to speak).
-
Well, at least he can be supported by merit of his principals. I just do not like the idea of supporting a candidate that has questionable principles simply because the media thinks they are "electable." It gives me a bad taste in my mouth (so to speak).
You are right. However, even chaim says he's a fraud.
If we wanted to support someone on their principles for this election, Bachmann would be the person we would have endorsed. However, you weren't here on this forum earlier in the year when we decided that it was better to go for someone that was also electable and halfway decent. At that time we thought it was Perry until he imploded in the debates.
This late in the game, the truth is, we simply don't know for sure who to endorse. It has changed direction a few times on JTF. Chaim said that he will put up a poll later and gather a majority from the forum on which stance we should take.
At this point, after hearing the debate with Gingrich, I was impressed and pleasantly surprised by his stance on the middle east. Again, can we trust him? Is he even electable?
The reality is, whomever the GOP will choose, we will endorse...because the goal is, for now, for Obama to lose. The reason we aren't taking any strong stances on anyone at this point is because they all stink.
-
Santorum has no money and no election savy, and unfortunately, that means he will not be a contender.
An Obama second term would be the most awful scenario imaginable, so we can't take any chances here, and we have to focus on whoever has the best chance to beat him.
-
If I had to back a no-chance candidate it would be Bachman, not Santorum.
-
You are right. However, even chaim says he's a fraud.
If we wanted to support someone on their principles for this election, Bachmann would be the person we would have endorsed. However, you weren't here on this forum earlier in the year when we decided that it was better to go for someone that was also electable and halfway decent. At that time we thought it was Perry until he imploded in the debates.
This late in the game, the truth is, we simply don't know for sure who to endorse. It has changed direction a few times on JTF. Chaim said that he will put up a poll later and gather a majority from the forum on which stance we should take.
At this point, after hearing the debate with Gingrich, I was impressed and pleasantly surprised by his stance on the middle east. Again, can we trust him? Is he even electable?
The reality is, whomever the GOP will choose, we will endorse...because the goal is, for now, for Obama to lose. The reason we aren't taking any strong stances on anyone at this point is because they all stink.
Has Bachman made comments that are pro-Jewish like the ones I posted of Santorum or that were posted of Huckabee when he said there were no fakestinians? I would like to see them. I did not realize that Chaim said he was a fraud. It would not surprise me, I was simply looking at the candidates pro-Jewish stance. That is, a candidate that is against a fakestinian state in an form. Is there any chance that we will ultimately see the Republican candidate hold that ground? I hope so. Of course I agree that right now the goal is to rid ourselves of BHO. That goes without saying. Of course I would vote for my cat rather than him, so that is a no-brainer.
-
Has Bachman made comments that are pro-Jewish like the ones I posted of Santorum or that were posted of Huckabee when he said there were no fakestinians? I would like to see them. I did not realize that Chaim said he was a fraud. It would not surprise me, I was simply looking at the candidates pro-Jewish stance. That is, a candidate that is against a fakestinian state in an form. Is there any chance that we will ultimately see the Republican candidate hold that ground? I hope so. Of course I agree that right now the goal is to rid ourselves of BHO. That goes without saying. Of course I would vote for my cat rather than him, so that is a no-brainer.
For me, it is more important that Israelis decide their fate and not rely on what the united states thinks. What is important for America is that its leaders bless Israel...if they curse Israel, America will be cursed. And Gd will choose His curse appropriately. The only reason I would want an American leader that is truly pro-Israel is for America's sake and not Israel's sake. Israel only has to rely on Hashem to be protected.
-
Well spoken and true indeed, but it sure wouldn't hurt.
I agree completely, if the U.S. turns its back on Israel then this country is DONE. That is a sad fact that I hope the citizens of the U.S. avoid. It is within their power to choose right over wrong and I hope they do.
-
Well spoken and true indeed, but it sure wouldn't hurt.
I agree completely, if the U.S. turns its back on Israel then this country is DONE. That is a sad fact that I hope the citizens of the U.S. avoid. It is within their power to choose right over wrong and I hope they do.
The truth is that Israel doesn't need America nor any other country...it's the other way around.
-
I don't see how Santorum is any improvement at all.
Even under the assumption that Rick Santorum is an improvement, the following article demonstrates that when push come to shove, Rick Santorum is closer to Mitt Romney when it comes to political correctness than he is to Newt Gingrich. Santorum's response in the debate was also along these lines.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/santorum-calls-gingrichs-palestinian-comment-provocative-106754.html
Santorum calls Gingrich's Palestinian comment 'provocative'
/10/11 1:36 PM EST Rick Santorum, at an appearance pre-debate in Iowa, jabbed Newt Gingrich for his "invented" Palestinians comment, per POLITICO's Ginger Gibson:
Taking questions from the three reporters who attended the event, Santorum carefully responded to Newt Gingrich's recent remarks that Palestinians are an "invented people."
Santorum said the U.S. should continue to be a strong ally of Israel.
"It doesn't mean we should do something provocative that makes it harder for them to get an agreement with the folks they're negotiating with," Santorum said, referring to "people" and "folks" and avoiding the term "Palestinian."
Santorum has hardly been dovish, and his remarks illustrate the extent to which Gingrich's rivals see an opening over his comments aired Friday in advance of the anticipated slugfest at Drake University tonight.
-
Exactly, which is why I was left scratching my head as to why Daniel supports him.
-
Exactly, which is why I was left scratching my head as to why Daniel supports him.
There's someone who I know and respect who also is a strong supporter of Rick Santorum. Granted, on the surface, Santorum makes some good statements. He also seems to have good positions on the Iran issue: But when push came to shove in 2004, Santorum showed that he wasn't a true Conservative. He supported Arlen Specter for re-election in 2004 instead of supporting a much better Republican candidate in Pat Toomey. Thankfully, Toomey defeated Specter in the Republican primary in 2010. But in part because of Santorum, Specter had 6 more years to cause damage in the U.S. Senate:
http://libertylinked.com/posts/7872/remembering-rick-santorum/View.aspx
REMEMBERING RICK SANTORUM, ARLEN SPECTER, AND PAT TOOMEY -- BY DONNA GARNER -- 7.30.11
Blog Entry in Donna Garner's Blog
“Remembering Rick Santorum, Arlen Specter, Pat Toomey”
by Donna Garner
7.30.11
Here is what really happened in the 2004 Pennsylvania U. S. Senate race between Arlen Specter and Pat Toomey.
Toomey had been a proven conservative member of the U. S. House (1999-2005) and had a 100% pro-life record as well as being considered an expert on fiscal responsibility. (He later became the president of Club for Growth -- 2005-09.)
Arlen Specter was a RINO of the worst order and was pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-amnesty, pro-gun-control, and pro-affirmative action. Specter voted against the confirmation of Judge Bork (1987), one of the greatest legal scholars in America and a judge who believed in relying upon the original intent of those who wrote the U. S. Constitution.
Specter also voted against the impeachment of President Clinton (1999) even though clear evidence was presented that showed Clinton had perjured himself and had obstructed justice. The House voted to impeach Clinton, but the Senate Democrats joined by such RINO’s as Specter voted against impeachment.
The other U. S. Senator from Pennsylvania between 1994 - 2006 was Rick Santorum. In 2004, even though conservatives from Pennsylvania and from all across the country begged Senator Rick Santorum to support Pat Toomey for Specter’s U. S. Senate seat, Santorum decided to support Specter for re-election to the Senate, following the lead of President G. W. Bush and Karl Rove. Toomey lost by a mere 1.7% margin.
If Santorum, Bush, and Rove had supported Toomey, he would undoubtedly have been elected Senator; and Specter would never have become the chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
Several days after Specter won his re-election to the Senate, basking in his upcoming appointment as chair of the Judiciary Committee, he announced that he would use a litmus test to block any pro-life federal judges; and he did just that.
What this whole incident involving Santorum taught me is that when it came time to support conservative principles during a very high-profile, “crunch-time” or else to go along with the Republican political machine, Santorum chose the latter. I cannot seem to wipe this out of my memory about Rick Santorum.
I want to support a conservative candidate for President who will have the courage to stand no matter what the polls say, no matter how the “wind blows,” no matter what the Republican political machine may say, no matter how difficult and impossible the task ahead may look.
I need to see actions instead of rhetoric. My candidate for President must have a record of success showing that he or she will not back down on those important conservative principles that must not be compromised away. Yes, there is a time to compromise but not when compromise will destroy the basic tenets upon which our nation is founded.
A dear friend once said, “I have never yet seen a RINO who will stand up to the Democrats.”
Donna Garner
[email protected]
-
Arlen Sphincter was worse than most Democrats. A real piece of camel excrement.
-
Exactly. To the point that he became a Democrat.
-
I wasn't necessarily "in favor" of Santorum so much as I was saying we should reevaluate the messages that all of the candidates are spouting given that there is no clear choice. I was saying the obvious litmus test is their support for Am Yisrael. Perhaps Santorum is not the ideal candidate, but the question remains, will Newt and Romney be the only options?
The recent story that covers Newt calling the fakestinians an invented people is encouraging if he does end up getting the nomination.
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=248865
So, does that cinch it? Is Newt far more in support of Am Yisrael and against a fakestinian state whereas Romeney is still in favor of an eventual fakestinian state? If that is the case and it comes to a choice between Romney and Newt, then I would support Newt purely on his assertion that there is no Fakestine and fakestinians are just Arabs etc. etc.
-
The truth is that Israel doesn't need America nor any other country...it's the other way around.
Assuming the Jews running it are sane.
-
The latest poll shows voters are now fleeing Newt. I am a little bet nervous here, that if the voters dont start backing someone, we could end up with a Donald Trump.
-
I think that Rick Santorum has been unfairly disregarded by many people....He is a true Conservative and does support Israel....The danger is that we get too critical of all the candidates and don't vote...allowing Obama to win re-election. That is what the Progressive Socialists are hoping for, that they can discredit all the candidates and disatisfy the voters by showing us that none of them are electable...This is pure deception....Can anyone really believe that another 4 years of Obama would be better than these GOP Candidates?
-
Debbie, that is a very good point. I was very suspicious when they scheduled so many debates between the candidates. It seemed to me like opportunity after opportunity to make themselves look incompetent. The debates were often about image and not substance. Today the left is laughing because they no longer have a monopoly on their politician being an idiot in front of the camera. I think one of the most awesome projects out there would to hack the presidents teleprompter to see if you could sneak in a few choice words. I seriously wonder if he would notice.
-
Santorum is now surging in Iowa apparently...
-
Santorum is now surging in Iowa apparently...
Please Please Please!!!
-
it is looking like it will be an obama/clinton ticket for the dems. if over 50% of americans will vote for that, the idea of america is dead and america is a lost nation soon to be ripped into little statelike countries.
-
We should consider anyone but Ron Paul
-
We should consider anyone but Ron Paul
Even Dennis Kucinich? :laugh:
-
My state has very little power in deciding this, most of the runners will drop out of the race before it gets here.
I have nothing against Iowa or the other pipsqueak states that front loaded but it's just idiotic that a huge state like Texas has no say
-
All primaries need to be on the same day.
-
All primaries need to be on the same day.
I agree.Santorum would make a great President
-
Santorum is now surging in Iowa apparently...
Check this out:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/28/cnn-iowa-poll-romney-25-paul-22-santorum-16-gingrich-14/
Hmm, maybe Santorum has a fighting chance after all. It is quite interesting that he is now third in the running in Iowa. The thing about RINOmney is that he has lots of kesef and R(acist)on Paul has idiotic blind fanatic followers. It will be quite daunting for Santorum to battle those kinds of political machines. I hope the RP campaign implodes soon. That schmuck is getting way too much airtime.
I would take Newt or Santorum over RINOmney.
-
santorum is a much better candidate in terms of his beliefs than gingrich or romney. at least he is a bible-believing person and not a fraud. i saw some dick on cnn already attacking santorum saying he cant win. they want romney or nothing!!!!
-
Rick Santorum Response To Iran:
http://www.ricksantorum.com/response-iran
"Santorum Administration’s Response To Iran:
* Reinstate full funding authorized under the Iran Freedom and Support Act to assist pro-democracy groups within Iran
* Bring greater attention to human rights violations of the Iranian regime against democracy protestors and minority religious groups
* Would work with Israel to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat immediately; and developing a potential plan for military action if needed
* Would work with Israel to determine the proper military response needed to stabilize the region, protect our allies and protect this country – including the authorization of targeted airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
* Any nuclear scientist proven to be working for Iran’s nuclear program would be treated as an enemy combatant
* Help create Strike Funds to help organizers on the ground publicly protest and overthrow the regime
* Economically target Iran by sanctioning Iran’s central bank coupled with opening all forms of energy production in the U.S effectively devastating Iran’s only economy
* Ensure Iranian officials cannot access any of their funds by freezing bank accounts and significantly limit their travel by revoking visas
* Refuse to negotiate on any level with the terrorist state of Iran
* Neutralize Iran’s relationships with their primary allies in The Middle East by increasing pressure on Hezbollah and Syria
* Eliminate the post of U.S. Ambassador to Syria
* Stand with Israel as an ally and in any efforts Israel may take to defend themselves from Iranian aggression
* Would push for, fully fund and build a comprehensive missile defense system, and reevaluate the ramifications of the Start Treaty
* Authorize more research on the Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Threat
* Develop a National Prevention Plan to prevent a severe terrestrial and space emergencies that would take down our information systems or electrical grids
-
He is good.
-
בס''ד
Rick Santorum is a complete phony. He attacked Newt Gingrich for saying there are no "Palestinians". He is against Iran, but he would pressure Israel to commit suicide.
-
בס''ד
Rick Santorum is a complete phony. He attacked Newt Gingrich for saying there are no "Palestinians". He is against Iran, but he would pressure Israel to commit suicide.
Chaim, I saw the part of the debate where every candidate jumped all over Newt for stating the truth about the fakestinians. The fact that every other candidate said it was not prudent to do so concerned me very much. What do you feel about the way Santorum approached the fakestinian issue in the videos I shared? At least he is against Isdrael giving away land that he states plainly is Israeli land justly theirs won in a war. Would you please explain how he is a phony? I do not think he is willing to be as black and white as Newt, but then none of the other candidates were either. Doesn't he seem like a better alternative to RINOmney if Newt can not get the votes he needs to pull off the nomination? I am speaking strictly from a pragmatic perspective here. Please share the examples of Santorum being a phony. I am not an expert and welcome better information.
Shabbat Shalom!
Buenas entradas de Saba!
Daniel
-
It looks like Santorum is now getting the majority of the evangelical vote in Iowa. This is the same group that pushed Huckabee to the top in 2008.
-
Whether we want to accept it or not, Gingrich's telling the truth about the Fakestinians was very unpopular with voters, and was the major factor behind his rapid collapse in the polls.
-
Whether we want to accept it or not, Gingrich's telling the truth about the Fakestinians was very unpopular with voters, and was the major factor behind his rapid collapse in the polls.
Newt was attacked for his fannie/freddie invovlement. If you saw the debates, THATS what everyone ganged up on him for. If you've seen ALL the anti-Newt smear commercials, THATS what they focus on, because they know thats what turns off convervative voters. I'm not saying his opponents didnt try to leverage his fakestinian comments... but they barely touched it, and few who left Newt are even aware of his comments on the fakestinians.
From every conservative Ive talked to... they all steered away from Newt because of they beleive he is a typical hypocritical career politician who beleives in big government solutions. I'm not saying they are right.... Im just saying thats what they feel.
-
Newt was attacked for his fannie/freddie invovlement. If you saw the debates, THATS what everyone ganged up on him for. If you've seen ALL the anti-Newt smear commercials, THATS what they focus on, because they know thats what turns off convervative voters. I'm not saying his opponents didnt try to leverage his fakestinian comments... but they barely touched it, and few who left Newt are even aware of his comments on the fakestinians.
From every conservative Ive talked to... they all steered away from Newt because of they beleive he is a typical hypocritical career politician who beleives in big government solutions. I'm not saying they are right.... Im just saying thats what they feel.
Newt would be a 100% improvement over what we have now however the fact that he is a product of the system has to be a factor... Newt would be a place holder president at best if he were to be elected... He might reverse some of our sitting presidents worse policy however in the long run he would not take the drastic measures needed to make meaningful change... Honestly I don't see him even running for a second term even if he made it this time around... I could live with a Newt presidency however come primary day it looks more and more like I will be pulling the lever for Romney... It's my hope that Romney's business background might correct some of the bad policy thats killing off any chance of recovery.
-
Newt was attacked for his fannie/freddie invovlement. If you saw the debates, THATS what everyone ganged up on him for. If you've seen ALL the anti-Newt smear commercials, THATS what they focus on, because they know thats what turns off convervative voters. I'm not saying his opponents didnt try to leverage his fakestinian comments... but they barely touched it, and few who left Newt are even aware of his comments on the fakestinians.
From every conservative Ive talked to... they all steered away from Newt because of they beleive he is a typical hypocritical career politician who beleives in big government solutions. I'm not saying they are right.... Im just saying thats what they feel.
I see it almost the other way. The Fannie Mae crap certainly doesn't look good but the Fakestinian comments can be used to create the impression of Newt being a "racist", which is the ultimate sin in contemporary America, especially with brainwashed under-30 voters.
-
Santorum knows what he's doing just because during a debate he says something he knows the message got out about what Gingrich said anyways what i just heard is that Santorum is surging even more in Iowa he might come in first :)
-
I don't know why you like him. He is no better than Gingrich or Romney, maybe worse.
-
The following video focuses on Rick Santorum on NOT being a Fiscal Conservative:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Em-Wh943E