2012 GOP Primary

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Well shotgun made it sound like his train of though was "I don't think this is right but its in the constitution so I'll keep it the way it is." If thats the case, thats a horrible way to think.

 

He want's to keep the electoral college mostly because in the Constitution, we (the US) are a Constitutional Republic.. Ridding ourselves of the electoral college and going straight majority vote shys away from the foundation of a Republic and more towards a Democracy (which the US is not).

 

The college as it is now, gives more power to the states... The founding fathers created the college to avoid this very situation... Where a simple majority rules kind of thing wins something as important as the Presidential election(s).

 

The people you hear wanting to abolish the college are usually from heavily populated areas along the coasts.

 

The College is Pro-Liberty. Pro-Individual and Pro-State at the same time. Which is the train of thought of Dr. Paul.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Favre4Ever

[WindyCitySports 407]

Iowa Straw Poll Debate is on Fox News tonight at 8PM Iowa time

[WindyCitySports 407]

That doesn't sounds like a good thing to me. One of the major points the founders brought up when drafting the constitution was that it should be changeable. If something in the constitution has been generally decided to be wrong, he'd be doing his country a disservice if he didn't change it.

Could you provide some evidence that the founders ever mentioned changing the Constittion? I'm quite curious.

 

Sorry about the double post.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Pawlenty just got smoked in an entertaining back and forth with Michelle Bachmann.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

WCS, please don't neg my political posts if you're not even going to try to challenge my statements. That's some childish shit.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Could you provide some evidence that the founders ever mentioned changing the Constittion? I'm quite curious.

 

Sorry about the double post.

 

I think you misunderstood what he was asserting. What blotsfan meant was the Constitution should not be interpreted black and white and its interpretation should be relevant with the era in which its being used.

 

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -Thomas Jefferson

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Santorum tried challenging Ron Paul, and lost.... What a pathetic showing for him all around.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Could you provide some evidence that the founders ever mentioned changing the Constittion? I'm quite curious.

 

Sorry about the double post.

The 5th article of the dang thing haha

[BwareDWare94 723]

Honestly, I'm not sure I'm going to vote in 2012. After the Rick Berg smear campaign knocking Earl Pomeroy out of office in ND, I'm flat out sick of politics. I mean, I could go on and on about how our politicians are the problem in this country, but wouldn't you guys agree that it's the uninformed voter? I mean, I'm not the most politically active and obervant, but I don't see a smear campaign on TV and immediately say "herp-derp, well I guess I can't vote for that guy if he did that."

 

But if we are to attack the politicians, the party who doesn't have a president in office is more concerned with holding a stalemate for the next four years than making any kind of progress.

[WindyCitySports 407]

I think you misunderstood what he was asserting. What blotsfan meant was the Constitution should not be interpreted black and white and its interpretation should be relevant with the era in which its being used.

 

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -Thomas Jefferson

Sure society changes over time, but the founders never intended for what is happening today to occur. What we are seeing today is not people conforming the Constitution around a changing world, but rather people ignoring the Constitution to conform to their own personal beliefs, and even worse, special interests.

 

As to the debate tonight, I thought Santorum made an ass out if himself. Romney remained very quiet and didn't make too many bold statements (as front runners usually try not to). The standouts I thought were Gingrich, Cain, and Paul. I was very impressed with Gingrich's response to many of the questions. Cain puts his foot in his mouth a lot, but I still really liked his stances and some of the plans he laid out. Paul didn't talk much at the beginning, but I thought he rocked it in the second hour. I still think Bachmann is an idiot who never lays out any specific plans.

 

And Durant: I didn't have time to explain it today because I was at work all day and I was posting only a few brief comments when I saw your post, which I saw as stupid. I think I am going to go on tomorrow to truly educate you as to Ron Paul's opinions. Would you prefer I PM you or embarrass you out in public?

[Shotgun 442]

I agree Bware. The crap that goes on in politics and the people who vote for others for superficial reasons are why things are how they are. It also makes me not want to bother even voting, especially when I know the guy I would vote for has next to no chance of getting into office.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

And Durant: I didn't have time to explain it today because I was at work all day and I was posting only a few brief comments when I saw your post, which I saw as stupid. I think I am going to go on tomorrow to truly educate you as to Ron Paul's opinions. Would you prefer I PM you or embarrass you out in public?

 

Don't be a puss. Post them here. Considering you claimed Drew Bledsoe is a top 10 or 15 QB all-time I think I'll take my chances. I'm genuinely excited to hear you tell me how Austrian economics is applicable in the real world.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Phailadelphia

[WindyCitySports 407]

The Austrian economic idea bases it's ideas off of something that you commonly will hear GOP candidates talk about: the free market. Conservatives maintain that if the government has a limited role in the economy, the market will regulate itself. This idea is credited to economist Adam Smith, who coined the term "invisible hand." It is commonly known that there is a natural fluctuation in the economy, as the economy is completely based on confidence.

 

On the other side of the coin is Keynesian economics, which assert that the solution to economic difficulty is regulation by the public sector. This is exactly what has gotten us into a financial mess, and it started a long time ago. When we were taken off the gold standard, our money lost a lot of value, as it became solely a government-backed currency rather than a gold-backed currency. This led to massive inflation and has ever since, which is exactly why everyone's money is worth less today. Also, we have seen government intervention hurt both big and small buisness.

 

Now I am led to Reaganomics, which say that everything the government does to big buisness will "trickle down" to the general public. And this is where I think Ron Paul rocks it. If the government lowers taxes on EVERYBODY, the economy can boom, and here is why. When big buisnesses are paying low taxes and are not being regulated, these buisnesses save money. The money these buisnesses have saved is injected into the buisness, which helps the economy in three areas:

 

1. The employees can recieve higher wages, resulting in a wealthier middle class.

2. The buisness has room in the budget to add additional jobs, helping our unemployment problem.

3. The buisness can improve the quality of their goods, resulting in an increased confidence in the economy, as well as an increase in exports.

 

So there is what a smaller government can do. How will Ron Paul do it? Cut military spending. We spend more on our military than every other country in the world combined, as well as every other area of the budget combined. We have troops in nearly every country in the world. If we get our troops out of Iraq, as well as countries like Germany, and set an exit strategy in Afghanistan/Pakistan, we can dramatically cut spending and lower our debt. Furthermore, we can repeal laws like Obamacare, which put strict regulations on what was once the free market. This can also help us lower the debt. Next, we faze out the IRS. People call RP "radical" for that idea, but it makes sense. There is no need for the IRS, especially if we lower taxes.

 

Finally, I would like to show you why Paul is not as radical as people paint him to be.

 

 

Before 1985, we never had a stark increase in the debt level. Reagan greatly increased the debt (one of my biggest criticisms of him), but he had good reason to. He outspent the Soviets, eliminating our biggest threat from existence. Clinton helped cut back on spending a little bit in the 90s (something I praise him for), and once the Bush administration took over, the debt level skyrocketed again, as it has continued to do so under the Obama administration. Only three administrations have believed it is ok to spend so much (and Reagan had a reason), so why is Paul considered a "nutjob" for wanting us to cut our debt in half?

[BwareDWare94 723]

The Austrian economic idea bases it's ideas off of something that you commonly will hear GOP candidates talk about: the free market. Conservatives maintain that if the government has a limited role in the economy, the market will regulate itself. This idea is credited to economist Adam Smith, who coined the term "invisible hand." It is commonly known that there is a natural fluctuation in the economy, as the economy is completely based on confidence.

 

On the other side of the coin is Keynesian economics, which assert that the solution to economic difficulty is regulation by the public sector. This is exactly what has gotten us into a financial mess, and it started a long time ago. When we were taken off the gold standard, our money lost a lot of value, as it became solely a government-backed currency rather than a gold-backed currency. This led to massive inflation and has ever since, which is exactly why everyone's money is worth less today. Also, we have seen government intervention hurt both big and small buisness.

 

Now I am led to Reaganomics, which say that everything the government does to big buisness will "trickle down" to the general public. And this is where I think Ron Paul rocks it. If the government lowers taxes on EVERYBODY, the economy can boom, and here is why. When big buisnesses are paying low taxes and are not being regulated, these buisnesses save money. The money these buisnesses have saved is injected into the buisness, which helps the economy in three areas:

 

1. The employees can recieve higher wages, resulting in a wealthier middle class.2. The buisness has room in the budget to add additional jobs, helping our unemployment problem.

3. The buisness can improve the quality of their goods, resulting in an increased confidence in the economy, as well as an increase in exports.

So there is what a smaller government can do. How will Ron Paul do it? Cut military spending. We spend more on our military than every other country in the world combined, as well as every other area of the budget combined. We have troops in nearly every country in the world. If we get our troops out of Iraq, as well as countries like Germany, and set an exit strategy in Afghanistan/Pakistan, we can dramatically cut spending and lower our debt. Furthermore, we can repeal laws like Obamacare, which put strict regulations on what was once the free market. This can also help us lower the debt. Next, we faze out the IRS. People call RP "radical" for that idea, but it makes sense. There is no need for the IRS, especially if we lower taxes.

 

Finally, I would like to show you why Paul is not as radical as people paint him to be.

 

 

Before 1985, we never had a stark increase in the debt level. Reagan greatly increased the debt (one of my biggest criticisms of him), but he had good reason to. He outspent the Soviets, eliminating our biggest threat from existence. Clinton helped cut back on spending a little bit in the 90s (something I praise him for), and once the Bush administration took over, the debt level skyrocketed again, as it has continued to do so under the Obama administration. Only three administrations have believed it is ok to spend so much (and Reagan had a reason), so why is Paul considered a "nutjob" for wanting us to cut our debt in half?

 

But what are the chances of either of those happening? Big business isn't going to pay higer wages unless they're forced to. And as long as their product doesn't bring in major complaints, they're just going to make it even cheaper so they can produce even more and a bigger portion of American consumers buy and/or can afford their product.

 

In a perfect world, everybody follows the "moral code" that the GOP preaches, but we don't live in a perfect world.

[WindyCitySports 407]

But what are the chances of either of those happening? Big business isn't going to pay higer wages unless they're forced to. And as long as their product doesn't bring in major complaints, they're just going to make it even cheaper so they can produce even more and a bigger portion of American consumers buy and/or can afford their product.

 

In a perfect world, everybody follows the "moral code" that the GOP preaches, but we don't live in a perfect world.

Ah, but in the free market economy, people buy the best quality goods; it's a competitive economy. Therefore, businesses should be looking to improve their product to beat out competition.

 

Sure, they aren't always going to create jobs, but they will the majority of the time. They would want to expand their company, and would need money to do so (the money they would save from tax cuts). They then expand and that creates jobs. If they don't feel like expanding, other companies will, and those companies will beat them out.

 

The beauty of a capitalist system.

[Krawnka 282]

Ah, but in the free market economy, people buy the best quality goods;

 

 

Unfortunately, not true...if it were true, Harbor Freight would be out of business, and China wouldn't be making any product for the US consumer.

 

American consumers are becoming more interested in disposable products, that satisfy their short term desires, at a cheap price.

 

The only way to force American companies to increase wages, is to increase tax on all imported goods...it worked for the Light Truck business, with the "Chicken Tax"...even if it was just a corrupt move to satisfy UAW campaign contributors. It actually had a positive influence into the American economy...one of the very few things LBJ did that had a positive result.

 

In the long run, that is a tax that actually created jobs in America, provided by Japanese automobile companies, for the illegal Mexican laborer...

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Oh boy I don't even know where to begin. Let's break it down from the top.

 

The Austrian economic idea bases it's ideas off of something that you commonly will hear GOP candidates talk about: the free market. Conservatives maintain that if the government has a limited role in the economy, the market will regulate itself. This idea is credited to economist Adam Smith, who coined the term "invisible hand." It is commonly known that there is a natural fluctuation in the economy, as the economy is completely based on confidence.

 

On the other side of the coin is Keynesian economics, which assert that the solution to economic difficulty is regulation by the public sector. This is exactly what has gotten us into a financial mess, and it started a long time ago. When we were taken off the gold standard, our money lost a lot of value, as it became solely a government-backed currency rather than a gold-backed currency. This led to massive inflation and has ever since, which is exactly why everyone's money is worth less today. Also, we have seen government intervention hurt both big and small buisness.

 

For starters, you're not even discussing the REAL differences between the two economic theories. Austrian economics basically throws up its hands and says standard quantitative scientific methods are not applicable towards economics (which is bullshit). It uses a system of metrics as its basis and builds on these principles with complete disregard for what actually happens in the real world. It's entire premise is predicated on arbitrary assumptions, gives no useful information, and provides no way of modeling or studying economic systems. Conservatives like Austrian economics because it provides basic arguments with specific political conclusions. It's pseudoscience.

 

Meanwhile, mainstream economics (ie. Keynesian theory) advances new theories and methods. It provides quantitative tools to analyze previous economic events. Basically, mainstream economics bases its theories on actual scientific methods a la social sciences. There are no inevitable, pre-determined conclusions like you find in Austrian economics because they can be applied to any type of economy, be it a completely free market or one with mild or even aggressive government regulation.

 

Keynesian theory is a product of social sciences. Austrian economics is just bad political philosophy.

 

Now I am led to Reaganomics, which say that everything the government does to big buisness will "trickle down" to the general public. And this is where I think Ron Paul rocks it. If the government lowers taxes on EVERYBODY, the economy can boom, and here is why. When big buisnesses are paying low taxes and are not being regulated, these buisnesses save money. The money these buisnesses have saved is injected into the buisness, which helps the economy in three areas:

 

How in the hell did you devolve this into Reaganomics?

 

1. The employees can recieve higher wages, resulting in a wealthier middle class.

2. The buisness has room in the budget to add additional jobs, helping our unemployment problem.

3. The buisness can improve the quality of their goods, resulting in an increased confidence in the economy, as well as an increase in exports.

 

1. The market dictates how much a particular job is worth in terms of salary. Not how much money is in the pockets of the business.

2. No, it has room in the budget to load up its current employees with more work until they're forced to hire more people. For the record, corporations are raking in record profits right now. Where are all these jobs you're talking about?

3. The current corporate tax rate hasn't discouraged businesses from innovation. Moot point.

 

So there is what a smaller government can do. How will Ron Paul do it? Cut military spending. We spend more on our military than every other country in the world combined, as well as every other area of the budget combined. We have troops in nearly every country in the world. If we get our troops out of Iraq, as well as countries like Germany, and set an exit strategy in Afghanistan/Pakistan, we can dramatically cut spending and lower our debt. Furthermore, we can repeal laws like Obamacare, which put strict regulations on what was once the free market. This can also help us lower the debt. Next, we faze out the IRS. People call RP "radical" for that idea, but it makes sense. There is no need for the IRS, especially if we lower taxes.

 

Off-topic.

 

Finally, I would like to show you why Paul is not as radical as people paint him to be.

 

 

Before 1985, we never had a stark increase in the debt level. Reagan greatly increased the debt (one of my biggest criticisms of him), but he had good reason to. He outspent the Soviets, eliminating our biggest threat from existence. Clinton helped cut back on spending a little bit in the 90s (something I praise him for), and once the Bush administration took over, the debt level skyrocketed again, as it has continued to do so under the Obama administration. Only three administrations have believed it is ok to spend so much (and Reagan had a reason), so why is Paul considered a "nutjob" for wanting us to cut our debt in half?

 

He's not a nut job because he wants to cut the debt in half. He's a nut job because of the methods he wants to go about doing it.

 

What are you, 12? Stop negging political posts.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Phailadelphia

[WindyCitySports 407]

Unfortunately, not true...if it were true, Harbor Freight would be out of business, and China wouldn't be making any product for the US consumer.

 

American consumers are becoming more interested in disposable products, that satisfy their short term desires, at a cheap price.

 

The only way to force American companies to increase wages, is to increase tax on all imported goods...it worked for the Light Truck business, with the "Chicken Tax"...even if it was just a corrupt move to satisfy UAW campaign contributors. It actually had a positive influence into the American economy...one of the very few things LBJ did that had a positive result.

 

In the long run, that is a tax that actually created jobs in America, provided by Japanese automobile companies, for the illegal Mexican laborer...

I would appreciate a further explanation of this logic. I just don't see where you're coming from.

Edited August 12, 2011 by WindyCitySports

[WindyCitySports 407]

For starters, you're not even discussing the REAL differences between the two economic theories. Austrian economics basically throws up its hands and says standard quantitative scientific methods are not applicable towards economics (which is bullshit). It's entire premise is predicated on arbitrary assumptions, gives no useful information, and provides no way of modeling or studying economic systems. Conservatives like Austrian economics because it provides basic arguments with specific political conclusions.

 

Meanwhile, mainstream economics (ie. Keynesian theory) advances new theories and methods. It provides quantitative tools to analyze previous economic events. Basically, mainstream economics bases its theories on actual scientific methods a la social sciences. There are no inevitable, pre-determined conclusions like you find in Austrian economics because they can be applied to any type of economy, be it a completely free market or one with mild or even aggressive government regulation.

 

The idea behind Keynesian economics is it gives the government the tools to ease the severe dips and peaks that are the result of a capitalist economy. It has zero to do with government encroachment, increased regulation, or any of those other ridiculous conservative talking points.

It doesn't have anything to do with government encroachment? It has everything to do with that. Like you said, "it gives government the tools to ease the severe dips and peaks.." What that means is that the government now has the "tools" to control the economy, which liberals think is the answer because they believe the government can ease those dips and peaks. Well it can't. Like I explained in my previous post, government intervention needs to be limited, and the market will regulate itself. The idea that the government is going to step in and completely fix the economy is laughable. Government regulation will only hurt the economy, as it restricts buisnesses from doing what they want in order to benefeit the lower class. Yet, many don't understand that hurting the buisness owners hurts the lower classes, because the lower classes are working for the wealthy.

 

 

1. The market dictates how much a particular job is worth in terms of salary. Not how much money is in the pockets of the business.

2. No, it has room in the budget to load up its current employees with more work until they're forced to hire more people. For the record, corporations are raking in record profits right now. Where are all these jobs you're talking about?

3. The current corporate tax rate hasn't discouraged businesses from innovation. Moot point.

1. False. Companies decide how much to pay their employers. Even the public sector. Here in Chicago, a teacher gets paid roughly $20,000 more than a teacher in downstate Illinois. This is because the school districts made that decision based on how much tax revenue they get.

2. From 1982, Reagan cut taxes by 25%, essentially fixing one of the worst recessions we have seen, a recession brought upon by spending during the Carter administration and the very beginning of Reagan's term.

3. The current corperate tax rate is too high. Still, how can you say that buisnesses have not been innovating? We've seen massive improvements from the private sector, including technological advancements.

 

He's not a nut job because he wants to cut the debt in half. He's a nut job because of the methods he wants to go about doing it.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” - Mahatma Gandhi

 

If you'd like some more, hear it from Ron Paul himself:

Edited August 12, 2011 by WindyCitySports

[Krawnka 282]

I would appreciate a further explanation of this logic. I just don't see where you're coming from.

 

 

Large companies care about 1 thing, the bottom line. Lowering the taxes on big business won't reap any rewards for anyone, other than upper management, and marketing executives.

 

Middle management and below, might get more pizza parties, but that's about it....a few companies have variable compensation and profit sharing, but in my experience, even that amount has had a ceiling.

 

Lowering taxes won't stop companies from outsourcing jobs to cheap labor countries, such as China. Lower overhead means bigger bottom lines, lower overhead + lower taxes = even bigger bottom line, more "compensation" for upper management, and more pizza for everyone else.

 

Raising the taxes on imported goods, to counter the financial benefit of outsourcing labor, would force companies to remain in America, and force foreign companies to open plants here to avoid paying import taxes...case and point, Toyota Tundra. That is the only way to stop companies from shipping jobs offshore to increase profits and cut overhead.

 

The American economy is stuck in a vicious cycle of not having enough money to buy quality, so companies cut corners to still reap profits, by outsourcing jobs...which keeps the American consumer more concerned about price, than quality...which keeps companies outsourcing for cheaper labor...etc...

 

At the end of the day, Corporate America cares about 1 thing, profit....

[Guest Phailadelphia]

^ To add on to that, Americans don't give a dick about quality as WCS suggested in an earlier post. That's why you see WalMarts popping up in every corner of the country and local businesses being completely phased out. Companies that provide an ultimately cheaper product, whether it's a piece of shit or not, are going to win out.

[WindyCitySports 407]

So I just posted my response yesterday on the post that I said I wasn't ignoring you. I don't need a response, I just thought I would let you know.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

 

2. From 1982, Reagan cut taxes by 25%, essentially fixing one of the worst recessions we have seen, a recession brought upon by spending during the Carter administration and the very beginning of Reagan's term.

 

 

I have to head to work in about 2 minutes but I wanted to address this quickly: Reagan lowered tax rates in 1982, yes. You failed to mention, however, that he quickly did a 180 and signed into law the single biggest tax increase in American history the following year. He also raised taxes a few more times throughout his two year term as President.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Actually I think I have time to break this down quickly.

 

It doesn't have anything to do with government encroachment? It has everything to do with that. Like you said, "it gives government the tools to ease the severe dips and peaks.." What that means is that the government now has the "tools" to control the economy, which liberals think is the answer because they believe the government can ease those dips and peaks. Well it can't. Like I explained in my previous post, government intervention needs to be limited, and the market will regulate itself. The idea that the government is going to step in and completely fix the economy is laughable. Government regulation will only hurt the economy, as it restricts buisnesses from doing what they want in order to benefeit the lower class. Yet, many don't understand that hurting the buisness owners hurts the lower classes, because the lower classes are working for the wealthy.

 

Check my edited post. That was a poor choice of words. Regardless, you failed to address anything I said about how Austrian economics works and instead you're spewing the same conservative talking points I've heard Ron Paul and other nut job Libertarians say for the past 10 years. Presumably because you have no idea how the theory actually operates.

 

 

1. False. Companies decide how much to pay their employers. Even the public sector. Here in Chicago, a teacher gets paid roughly $20,000 more than a teacher in downstate Illinois. This is because the school districts made that decision based on how much tax revenue they get.

 

Oh my god seriously? What I said went completely over your head.

 

3. The current corperate tax rate is too high. Still, how can you say that buisnesses have not been innovating? We've seen massive improvements from the private sector, including technological advancements.

 

I didn't say businesses haven't been innovating. I said high corporate tax rates have not prevented them from innovating. It hasn't prevented them from expanding, buying up other companies, or anything else for that matter either. I'm not even going to bother getting into the fact that most corporations work the tax code in a way that they don't have to pay taxes anyway (see: GE, for starters).

 

I'm still waiting on you to school me in Austrian economics.

[WindyCitySports 407]

Actually I think I have time to break this down quickly.

 

 

 

Check my edited post. That was a poor choice of words. Regardless, you failed to address anything I said about how Austrian economics works and instead you're spewing the same conservative talking points I've heard Ron Paul and other nut job Libertarians say for the past 10 years. Presumably because you have no idea how the theory actually operates.

 

 

 

 

Oh my god seriously? What I said went completely over your head.

 

 

 

I didn't say businesses haven't been innovating. I said high corporate tax rates have not prevented them from innovating. It hasn't prevented them from expanding, buying up other companies, or anything else for that matter either. I'm not even going to bother getting into the fact that most corporations work the tax code in a way that they don't have to pay taxes anyway (see: GE, for starters).

 

I'm still waiting on you to school me in Austrian economics.

I have made my points. What it all breaks down to is a greater ability for the American people, of all social classes, to greatly expand their economic situation. This country worked very well this way for the first 100+ years in existence, and it is a policy that continues to work when correctly implemented (Bush didn't correctly implement it).

 

And as far as your claim that Ron Paul is repeating conservative "talking points," that couldn't be more false. He constantly attacks other GOP candidates for these talking points, like "We will not apologize for America!" and, "We must not dumb our problems on our children!"