Assuming Palin runs, how likely is it that she could win? [Archive]

spunkymuzicnote

06-10-2011, 07:09 PM

Because frankly, the idea of that woman running the country scares the hell out of me. I know she's being all non-committal about it right now but lets face it, she's got something up her sleeve. Someone who can't even admit that they're wrong about a simple fact (the Paul Revere and the British thing for example) makes me very nervous. Everyone makes mistakes, but the least she can do is admit the flub and not try to cover it up. And while we're on the subject, why does she draw people to her in the first place? I just don't understand it. Someone please enlighten me because every time I see her I cringe. I'd like to know if my worries are real.

Recovering Republican

06-10-2011, 07:23 PM

River Hippie

06-10-2011, 07:24 PM

More likely than many here realize. Here in Central Derpistan the hate for the Kenyan Usurper is strong and the love for St. Sarah of Wasilla is strong. She's a strong conservative Christian woman with mainstream American values and common sense solutions to problems caused by Socialism. If she says Paul Revere fired warning shots and rang bells... well, that's what happened.

You betcha!

Frank

06-10-2011, 07:56 PM

More likely than many here realize.
Palin's negative rating in polls is quite high amongst Republicans, and even amongst self-identified Tea Partiers. Her following is going to Bachmann, who, while equally batshit insane, at least can speak coherently and has knowledge of the issues.

Fear Itself

06-10-2011, 08:35 PM

She could get nominated, but I don't think there is a chance in hell of her getting elected. She does not represent Middle America as much as she represents Batshit America, and as soon as she gets asked about the Ryan budget and privatizing Medicare, she loses the over-50 crowd.

JimH52

06-10-2011, 09:40 PM

She has as much chance of winning the GOP nomination as Gingrich has, which is Zero. I look for Bachmann to announce in the next several weeks, which would pretty much put Palin out of it.

TehBearJew

06-10-2011, 09:57 PM

She got lucky when McCain was desperate during his campaign and did something drastic. She should thank her lucky fucking stars that she's now a rich brainless used up media whore on tv now and just step the fuck aside. Imma gon get me some saltines. Hooyah!

Finagle

06-12-2011, 06:11 PM

She has as much chance of winning the GOP nomination as Gingrich has, which is Zero. I look for Bachmann to announce in the next several weeks, which would pretty much put Palin out of it.

Well, what are Bachmann's chances? I realize that she's batshit crazy, but she seems to be batshit crazy in the ultra conservative fundamental religionist way that appeals to the same base that has catapaulted Palin to fame. On top of that, she has fund-raising abilities and a law degree that grants her an intellectual credibility that Palin sorely lacks. Given the paucity of really strong candidates this year, I could see her name coming up if her handlers can rein in her tendency to make awe inspiring gaffes (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/republicans/a/michele-bachmann-quotes.htm).

JimH52

06-12-2011, 08:19 PM

Simplicio

06-12-2011, 08:39 PM

Well, what are Bachmann's chances? I realize that she's batshit crazy, but she seems to be batshit crazy in the ultra conservative fundamental religionist way that appeals to the same base that has catapaulted Palin to fame. On top of that, she has fund-raising abilities and a law degree that grants her an intellectual credibility that Palin sorely lacks. Given the paucity of really strong candidates this year, I could see her name coming up if her handlers can rein in her tendency to make awe inspiring gaffes (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/republicans/a/michele-bachmann-quotes.htm).

I still can't imagine she'll win, but I think she'll do pretty well, if for no other reason then if a voter wants to go for a formally moderate ex-governor, they'll have three candidates to choose from. If they want a more consistently conservative candidate who isn't totally fringe (like Paul or Cain), Bachmans pretty much the only choice.

IIRC, the GOP primary will have fewer "winner take all" races then in '08, which might draw things out more then in past years, and keep Romney or Pawlenty from knocking one or the other out early, and thus let them keep dividing the more moderate vote, which would also work to her advantage.

So I'd certainly give her better then 1:1000 odds, maybe something like 1:30 or so.

Boyo Jim

06-12-2011, 10:08 PM

The correct question is, if the economy doesn't get better, which Republican are we going to be stuck with. ...

I think if the economy stays tanked or gets worse, Palin still wouldn't win against Obama. Someone like Romney or Pawlenty might, but those media gotcha questions like, "How are you today?", will end up with Palin exploding or imploding or both.

Seriously, the only way she wins is if she doesn't open her mouth AT ALL. And I don't thinks she's smart enough to do even that.

On edit, I think it's nearly 50/50 that she could win the nomination if she runs, which is the best possible outcome for Obama.

Recovering Republican

06-13-2011, 05:57 AM

I think if the economy stays tanked or gets worse, Palin still wouldn't win against Obama. Someone like Romney or Pawlenty might, but those media gotcha questions like, "How are you today?", will end up with Palin exploding or imploding or both.

Seriously, the only way she wins is if she doesn't open her mouth AT ALL. And I don't thinks she's smart enough to do even that.

On edit, I think it's nearly 50/50 that she could win the nomination if she runs, which is the best possible outcome for Obama.

sorry, Jim, I think Palin actually comes out ahead in those fights with the media.

Let's look at the e-mail thing. The Press went over 24,000 e-mails trying to make her look like a jerk, and she actually came off looking smarter and more sympathetic.

Now, if we were Europeans, where they actually take education seriously, yeah, she'd be a non-starter. Unfortunately, we are Americans, where 45% don't believe in evolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Boyo Jim

06-13-2011, 07:16 AM

Chefguy

06-13-2011, 09:29 AM

sorry, Jim, I think Palin actually comes out ahead in those fights with the media.

Let's look at the e-mail thing. The Press went over 24,000 e-mails trying to make her look like a jerk, and she actually came off looking smarter and more sympathetic.

Now, if we were Europeans, where they actually take education seriously, yeah, she'd be a non-starter. Unfortunately, we are Americans, where 45% don't believe in evolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

To clarify, there were 8,000 emails that nobody has been allowed to see (redacted by former Palin employees), and which probably contain the bloody meat.

RTFirefly

06-13-2011, 12:03 PM

She has as much chance of winning the GOP nomination as Gingrich has, which is Zero. I look for Bachmann to announce in the next several weeks, which would pretty much put Palin out of it.The problem is that Palin's been polling quite well lately, and Bachmann's yet to break out of the mid single digits.

Here are the national polls of Republicans I could find so far this month. Other than the CNN poll, they're all from pollingreport.com (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh12rep.htm):

CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/13/cnn-poll-romney-at-top-of-the-gop-field/), June 3-7: Romney 24%, Palin 20%,..., Bachmann 4%.
USA Today/Gallup, June 8-11: Romney 24%, Palin 16%,..., Bachmann 5%.
Fox News, June 5-7: Romney 23%, Giuliani 13%, Palin 12%,..., Bachmann 4%.
Reuters/Ipsos, June 3-6: Palin 22%, Romney 20%,..., Bachmann 6%.
Quinnipiac, May 31-June 6: Romney 25%, Palin 15%,..., Bachmann 6%.
ABC News/WaPo, June 2-5: Romney 21%, Palin 17%,..., Bachmann 3%.

I just don't see how Bachmann can do much damage to Palin's standing in the race anytime soon, by announcing or by any other means. But as long as Palin is (or appears to be) running, she sucks up most of Bachmann's oxygen.

joebuck20

06-13-2011, 04:21 PM

Palin's biggest fan turns against her. John Ziegler says she can't beat Obama:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/12/the-sarah-palin-i-know/

Be warned however, that article is pretty self serving.

Exapno Mapcase

06-13-2011, 05:04 PM

The correct question is, if the economy doesn't get better, which Republican are we going to be stuck with.

Ultimately, the 2012 election will be a referendum on the economy, particulary unemployment.

If it's over 9%, the Republicans could run the Cheney/C'Thulhu ticket and win.

It it's below 6%, Obama is probably going to have an easy time of it.

I keep hearing this argument and I think it's oversimplistic at best and more probably dead wrong.

The unemployment rate is over 9% right now. If the election were held today, Obama would be re-elected.

The objection to this is that the Republicans haven't yet chosen a candidate or started the campaign. True, of course. The money will flow to the nominee and the ads will pound Obama daily.

And yet... Obama has been pounded daily for over two years. And the Democrats, now in disarray and fumbling around, will get to concentrate their message in a billion dollars worth of campaign support. That campaign will actually improve once a Republican nominee is chosen. No candidate is well-liked or has broad support even within the party and each one has huge negatives already that are certain to be exploited.

In addition, the demographics are highly favorable to the Democrats. More than half of Obama supporters sat out the 2010 election. There is no chance this will happen in 2012.

This demographic advantage is largely dissipated because of the Electoral College, with the Democrats likely to have huge majorities in a few states but have very close races in swing states. That makes the race closer than the raw totals would indicate.

The economy will be a huge factor in the election. But Americans hate to turn out a sitting president without a strong rationale. That the economy is still what it is today is not that rationale. Almost every economist is predicting some upturn by November 2012 as well.

There is essentially no chance that maintaining the current unemployment numbers will lose the presidency for a generally popular president waging a campaign against an opponent starting out with no broad support. It really doesn't matter who that candidate is. Palin has less than essentially no chance because her negatives are gigantic and her base keeps shrinking. But the same argument can be made for Romney.

Campaigns are filled with unexpected events and a large unexpected event can change everything overnight. (see Weiner, Anthony) At this moment, however, there is no reasonable way to predict a Republican win extrapolated off the current situation. This isn't a prediction about the future, though, because I don't know any of the variables. It's just saying that your extrapolation makes no sense to me.

Chimera

06-13-2011, 05:34 PM

I say, let's wait until some of the Derp starts to hit the national campaign and actually be scrutinized.

Let's kill Medicare! There goes the elderly vote. The same people you rallied last year on the false claim that Obama was trying to merely damage Medicare.

Let's kill any Government service that can be privatized Sure, just wait until the cost estimates start rolling in and people start to really understand what they have to lose.

Let's cut taxes! Hey! Let's inflate the deficit even more!

Let's cut entitlements! Oh wait, you mean grandma's social security?

Let's cut onerous government regulations and oversight! You mean like Energy and Food safety programs? Meaning more bad drugs, more tainted food and more oil, coal and nuclear accidents?

All this shit sounds great to the uneducated when they can assume that it won't affect them other than by maybe lowering their taxes, or it hits their buzzword bingo card (courtesy of Fox News). The reality is much harsher.

Fuzzy Dunlop

06-13-2011, 06:12 PM

sorry, Jim, I think Palin actually comes out ahead in those fights with the media.

It's hard to say with certainty that Palin is hurt by making a fool of herself time and time again, but the opinion polls of her show pretty clearly that she's destroyed any chance of being a serious candidate.

Take this June 7 ABC/Washington Post Poll: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-loses-bin-laden-bounce-romney-on-the-move-among-gop-contenders/2011/06/06/AGT5wiKH_story.html?hpid=z1

Almost 2/3rds of all Americans say they definitely would not vote for Pailin and and 42% of Republicans said they definitely would not. More than 60% of those polled said they consider her unqualified to be president.

If someone wants to imagine some other reason that more than 60% of Americans consider her unqualified thats fine, but it seems clear to me that it's because of the things she has said and done.

In a head-to-head matchup with Obama Palin trailed by 17 points, worse than any other hypothetical GOP candidate in the poll.

furt

06-13-2011, 06:28 PM

Fuzzy Dunlop

06-13-2011, 06:40 PM

She's certainly got plenty of negatives, but the "it's utterly impossible" line is nuts.

The flip, side of her negatives is that her base is sizable and fervent, strong enough that she'd be instantly be a top-3 candidate and stay there. If someone else implodes (you just know a Mitt Romney Sex Tape is out there somewhere), and it's too late for anyone else to get in, she could win the nomination. Not saying it's likely, but stranger things have happened.

And should she win the nomination, the strategy is a simple one. McCain/Palin lost to Obama by 10 million votes in 2008; assume that that margin is cut in half because of the economy, etc. to more typical margin of about 5 million. If First Major Party Presidential Nominee Palin can attract one-tenth of the eligible-but-didn't-vote-in-08 women to support her on the basis of gender it's a dead heat.

Again, not saying it's likely; but it's not hard to construct a plausible scenario.

The scenario you constructed isn't remotely plausible though. You cut the margin she lost by when on the bottom of the ticket in half when in fact her negatives have gone way way up since she lost. In the recent ABC/Washington Post poll I quoted earlier she would lose by SEVENTEEN points in a hypothetical matchup against Obama. If the same number of people vote in 2012 as in 2010, that would be a margin of 22.5 million votes. Is that plausible? I don`t know, but it's a lot more plausible to use a recent poll than arbitrarily cutting her last margin in half - when her negatives have actually increased massively.

Also, remember that women are MUCH more likely to have a highly negative opinion of Palin than men are. There's simply no reason to believe women would support her on the basis of gender when all the evidence shows women are actively opposed to her much more than men are.

Recovering Republican

06-13-2011, 07:18 PM

Thank you. It is indeed appropriate for you to apologize to me for having such an opinion. :p

If I wasn't clear enough in my post, my point is that Sarah will have some form of melt down hissy fit during the course of the campaign, and will be seen (more clearly than now, if that's possible) to not be emotionally stable enough for the job.

Okay, guy, you can try to be cute, but frankly, I haven't seen Palin have a meltdown.

I've seen her take a lot of hits from the media- most of them fair, a few below the belt, and suck it up. And frankly, talking about emotions sounds a bit sexist, doesn't it?

Palin SHOULD be a non-starter because she doesn't have the intellect for the job, but then again, neither did Bush, really. And I voted for the idiot twice.

Recovering Republican

06-13-2011, 07:23 PM

It's hard to say with certainty that Palin is hurt by making a fool of herself time and time again, but the opinion polls of her show pretty clearly that she's destroyed any chance of being a serious candidate.

Almost 2/3rds of all Americans say they definitely would not vote for Pailin and and 42% of Republicans said they definitely would not. More than 60% of those polled said they consider her unqualified to be president.

If someone wants to imagine some other reason that more than 60% of Americans consider her unqualified thats fine, but it seems clear to me that it's because of the things she has said and done.

In a head-to-head matchup with Obama Palin trailed by 17 points, worse than any other hypothetical GOP candidate in the poll.

I've seen a lot of politicians declared dead and make come-backs, so I'm not sure this is very telling.

Recovering Republican

06-13-2011, 07:28 PM

I keep hearing this argument and I think it's oversimplistic at best and more probably dead wrong.

The unemployment rate is over 9% right now. If the election were held today, Obama would be re-elected.

The objection to this is that the Republicans haven't yet chosen a candidate or started the campaign. True, of course. The money will flow to the nominee and the ads will pound Obama daily.

But here's the thing. We aren't talking about holding the election right now. We are talking about holding the election in 17 months. 17 months more of 9% unemployment, there are going to be a LOT of angry people out there.

Remember, Bush-41 had a HUGE lead after the first Gulf War, but the drip-drip-drip of bad economic news finally undermined him.

Fuzzy Dunlop

06-13-2011, 07:48 PM

I've seen a lot of politicians declared dead and make come-backs, so I'm not sure this is very telling.

Have you seen a lot of politicians make come-backs after 2/3rds of Americans said they definitely wouldn't vote for them and that they think they're unqualified for office?

You say "declared dead" like it's just me saying it, or some pundit declaring it. This is someone who has been one of the country's most prominent public figures for years and huge majorities of Americans are saying they would never vote for her.

joebuck20

06-13-2011, 08:10 PM

I've seen her take a lot of hits from the media- most of them fair, a few below the belt, and suck it up.

Are you kidding me? This is the same woman who threw a shitfit after Family Guy tossed out a throwaway line about her. The person who, after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, tried to turn herself into the victim. One thing she has not done very well at all, is to "suck it up."

Boyo Jim

06-13-2011, 08:19 PM

Just last week she was claiming that "What did you learn today?" was another media gotcha question.

Implicit

06-13-2011, 08:34 PM

And should she win the nomination, the strategy is a simple one. McCain/Palin lost to Obama by 10 million votes in 2008; assume that that margin is cut in half because of the economy, etc. to more typical margin of about 5 million. If First Major Party Presidential Nominee Palin can attract one-tenth of the eligible-but-didn't-vote-in-08 women to support her on the basis of gender it's a dead heat.

Again, not saying it's likely; but it's not hard to construct a plausible scenario.
She was added to the McCain ticket to get those women voters, how well did that turn out? Women didn't like her in 2008 (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1846443,00.html) and they don't like her now.

Recovering Republican

06-14-2011, 06:36 AM

Are you kidding me? This is the same woman who threw a shitfit after Family Guy tossed out a throwaway line about her. The person who, after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, tried to turn herself into the victim. One thing she has not done very well at all, is to "suck it up."

Well, let's look at those two.

The throwaway line was having a retarded character say "my mother is governor of Alaska". Ha, ha, ha. Very funny, considering she has a child with Down Syndrome. (Seriously, who thinks the Family Guy is even funny?)

And yes, people were trying to blame her for a schizophrenic Marxist shooting Giffords. "Why look, she put a target on Gifford's district. THAT must have set the guy off."

Most REASONABLE people wouldn't consider these reactions above the pale, really.

Now, I don't like the woman, and I don't think she's qualified. But neither was Bush-43, other than his father held the job, and a lot of reasonable people voted for him.

The reason why Palin is such a threat is because to a lot of people, she feels genuine, as opposed to Romney who really hasn't done anything that hasn't been checked by an image consultant, a pollster and a focus group.

Once again, elections are decided by that 10% in the middle that votes based on who they'd like to have a beer with. Frankly, I'd rather have a beer with Palin than Obama.

Recovering Republican

06-14-2011, 06:40 AM

She was added to the McCain ticket to get those women voters, how well did that turn out? Women didn't like her in 2008 (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1846443,00.html) and they don't like her now.

Actually, she was added to the ticket because far right conservatives were unethusiastic about McCain.

But honestly, at that point, I don't think anything was going to save McCain. Not with the economy in the state it was and the unpopularity of Bush over the war.

In 2012, though, it's Obama's economy.

Recovering Republican

06-14-2011, 06:52 AM

Have you seen a lot of politicians make come-backs after 2/3rds of Americans said they definitely wouldn't vote for them and that they think they're unqualified for office?

You say "declared dead" like it's just me saying it, or some pundit declaring it. This is someone who has been one of the country's most prominent public figures for years and huge majorities of Americans are saying they would never vote for her.

Fuzzy, I recall in 1983, Richie Daley came in third place for Mayor running against Harold Washington and Jane Byrne. Then there was a series of embarrassing stories that came out about how badly he had run the State's Attorney's office of Cook County, how they were knowingly sending innocent men to prison. By 1987 his reputation was so trashed that he didn't even put his hat in the ring, letting Washington beat Byrne a second time. The fact he couldn't put together a sentence that sounded coherent didn't help, either.

Then he got lucky, Washington had a heart attack, and he ran in a special election in 1989 and won. He then won five more times, being the longest serving mayor in Chicago History (a title previously held by his Dad.)

I remember George H. Bush having an 87% approval rating and top Democrats were so scared of him that they opted out of the race. And then he got beat by an obscure governor from Arkansas.

The flaw of politics is that politics if fickle. Here's the scenario I see where Palin COULD win.

1) She beats Romney in Iowa and SC, giving her momentum. Romney throws a bunch of money at the problem, just like he did in 2008, but it ends up looking like a rich guy trying to buy the presidency... well, pretty much like it did in 2008.

2) The economy gets worse. Maybe there's a double dip in the recession. If that happens, the Republcians could nominate Satan and win.

The thing is, having posted on Right Wing Blogs, she is the only one who really gets their blood flowing. Romney, Pawlenty, they are all kind of "meh, who cares".

joebuck20

06-14-2011, 07:09 AM

The throwaway line was having a retarded character say "my mother is governor of Alaska". Ha, ha, ha. Very funny, considering she has a child with Down Syndrome. (Seriously, who thinks the Family Guy is even funny?)

Not saying it wasn't in bad taste, but then again bad taste is pretty much Family Guy's stock-in-trade. And that was pretty mild, compared to some of the other stuff they usually do - see their bit on prom night Dumpster babies. Throwing a hissy fit over the joke just brought it more attention, and people like Seth McFarlane crave attention, especially if it's negative.

And yes, people were trying to blame her for a schizophrenic Marxist shooting Giffords. "Why look, she put a target on Gifford's district. THAT must have set the guy off."

Most REASONABLE people wouldn't consider these reactions above the pale, really.

I agree that this was one of the few cases where she had a legitimate gripe against the media, but the "blood libel" crap was beyond the pale on her part. And using most of her response to play the "woe-is-me" card, when, you know, it was someone else that had been actually shot, and throwing out some red meat in a situation that called for introspection was just obnoxious.

And even if we agree that her reactions to both these incidents were justified, I don't see how that constitutes "sucking it up."

Recovering Republican

06-14-2011, 05:49 PM

joe- Gee protecting your family from personal attacks...

Frankly, that's the kind of thing that makes her palatable to the red meat faction of the GOP. The one that gets upset when Obama goes around bowing to people.

Palin did herself no damage with the people she targets as supporters.

joebuck20

06-14-2011, 06:24 PM

Jas09

06-14-2011, 06:24 PM

a35362

06-14-2011, 06:53 PM

Never underestimate the woman's ego. I'll bet running for President is a lot of fun, especially at the start. Bunting and banners, people holding signs with your name on them, waiting for hours in the cold and the dark in New Hampshire, waiting to see you and to hear you speak; the crowds cheer, the bands play, the balloons drop. She surrounds herself with people who have no problem with who she is and try their best to do whatever she wants, who appear to take her seriously and tell her how wonderful she is. Aw, yeah, baby!

Oh, and a big fat Doper Welcome to the new Doper guests we have visiting us. Hope you sign up!

jsgoddess

06-14-2011, 07:40 PM

Palin's biggest fan turns against her. John Ziegler says she can't beat Obama:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/12/the-sarah-palin-i-know/

Be warned however, that article is pretty self serving.

And creepy. Wow. He comes off like a desperate stalker.

AClockworkMelon

06-14-2011, 07:50 PM

More than half of Obama supporters sat out the 2010 election. There is no chance this will happen in 2012. Why do you think that?

Jas09

06-14-2011, 08:32 PM

Why do you think that?Because Obama will be on the ticket? There is a reasonable argument to be made that a large number of new voters showed up in 2008 specifically to vote for Obama (the so-called "Disaffecteds"). Whether they show up in 2012 will go a long way to determine the outcome, but certainly it's more likely that they'll show up with him on the ticket than in an off-cycle election.

AClockworkMelon

06-14-2011, 10:00 PM

More than half of Obama supporters sat out the 2010 election. There is no chance this will happen in 2012.

Why do you think that?

Because Obama will be on the ticket? There is a reasonable argument to be made that a large number of new voters showed up in 2008 specifically to vote for Obama (the so-called "Disaffecteds"). Whether they show up in 2012 will go a long way to determine the outcome, but certainly it's more likely that they'll show up with him on the ticket than in an off-cycle election.Ignore me, folks (if aren't doing that yet you should get on it). I read "2010" but my brain interpreted it as "2008".

Recovering Republican

06-15-2011, 05:51 AM

I really don't think it's possible for her to even win the nomination. She will show well, no doubt about that - her base is fervent, and as Recovering points out, many of things she gets mocked for are actually assets with them.

But a fervent base only gets you so far. Lets say your potential path comes true (she wins in Iowa and SC - maybe with something like 25-30% of a highly-divided vote). After this, many of the marginal candidates will drop out, leaving something like Palin, Romney, Pawlenty (perhaps), maybe Rick Perry if he decides to run. By the time we get to Super Tuesday it will pretty much be down to Palin and not-Palin (and I think who that candidate will be is up for grabs). And that's where the high negatives in her own party kill her - there just aren't enough "second choice" Palin votes out there, IMO.

In the end I think she knows this, and is perfectly happy in her current role. But I know the OP was making the assumption that she decided to run. I could also see the above scenario be playing itself out with Bachman in the Palin role.

I don't know, I've read a few people who think she's really planning to jump in

Let's put it more generally. If Palin doesn't run, then Bachmann will, and frankly, I'd be more afraid of Bachmann than Palin.

Romney's big problems are that he's a Mormon, (most Evangelicals consider the Mormons to be heretics, at best.) and that he's a guy with four mansions who got that way by corporate raiding and putting working folks out of jobs.

You see, this is the underlying secret of the GOP. The GOP is the party of the wealthy. Once you realize that, as I have, you realize that as a working guy voting Republican makes about as much sense as a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders (Hense, my nom de plume). But they talk about guns and gays and Jesus and keep a lot of working folks voting against their own economic interests.

All that said, they can't rub people's noses in it by nominating guys who don't at least APPEAR to resonate with the average Joe.

Also, I think you discount those early primaries. They have a snowball effect- No, wait, screw that metaphor, they have an effect like Lemmings. You win Iowa, everyone takes you a bit more seriously. They give you a second look.

Now, I think the reason why Huckabee wasn't the nominee in 2008 was because people who really run things looked at the populist leanings and said, 'Hey, he can spout the Jesus stuff without signing on to the tax cuts for the rich stuff and win! YIKES!" Democracy might break out, and the 1% that owns half of everything will realize- they actually only have 1% of the vote. That's why you had Limbaugh and the Club for Growth come down on this guy.

Palin could have a similar populist appeal, because really, she wasn't rich until she cashed in. She and Todd had very blue collar lives . And although he is a pathetic shill, Limbaugh can't get out there and now denounce her after praising her for three years.

joebuck20

06-15-2011, 08:28 AM

Palin could have a similar populist appeal, because really, she wasn't rich until she cashed in. She and Todd had very blue collar lives . And although he is a pathetic shill, Limbaugh can't get out there and now denounce her after praising her for three years.

Not saying that they don't have a genuine blue collar background, but I've read that they made a lot of money from their fishing business, and were actually millionaires by the time Sarah ran for VP. They're not Mitt Romney-rich, of course, and what they had before is probably peanuts compared to what Sarah is making now by cashing in on her notoriety, but they've been pretty well-off for a while now.

BrainGlutton

06-15-2011, 10:03 AM

A Palin-Obama debate would be a . . . deeply disturbing thing to watch. Regardless of one's politics.

Exapno Mapcase

06-15-2011, 10:03 AM

When you're in the public eye before a campaign the money pours in. When you are a declared candidate running an actual campaign the money hemorrhages out.

There in two sentences is why Palin is not running.

Merijeek

06-15-2011, 10:05 AM

Romney's big problems are that he's a Mormon, (most Evangelicals consider the Mormons to be heretics, at best.) and that he's a guy with four mansions who got that way by corporate raiding and putting working folks out of jobs.

You see, this is the underlying secret of the GOP. The GOP is the party of the wealthy. Once you realize that, as I have, you realize that as a working guy voting Republican makes about as much sense as a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders (Hense, my nom de plume). But they talk about guns and gays and Jesus and keep a lot of working folks voting against their own economic interests.

But you see, that's where you're wrong. You're forgetting the inherent stupidity of the average Republican voter.

They have no problem with someone like Romney getting wealthy by putting people out of their jobs. The REAL men, the REAL GOPer, the REAL rugged individualist wouldn't have lost his job. He would have stood apart from the pack and he would have been lauded for being superior to the losers around him.

Besides, of course your GOPer Six-Pack wants taxes reduced to nothing for the wealthy. Some day that'll be him, and he doesn't want his millions going to some damned welfare queen who was stupid enough to get outsourced by a true entrepreneur like Romney.

-Joe

Voyager

06-15-2011, 02:55 PM

Voyager

06-15-2011, 02:58 PM

A Palin-Obama debate would be a . . . deeply disturbing thing to watch. Regardless of one's politics.

Why more disturbing than the Biden / Palin debate? There is no reason to think Palin would want to or could prepare better. She'd stick to canned talking points, just like before. Now, if she started to try to think on her feet it would be a laff riot, but they'd never let her do that.

Onomatopoeia

06-15-2011, 04:17 PM

I repeat, Palin is not going to run.

Exapno Mapcase

06-15-2011, 05:04 PM

You think she'd use her own money? She's dumb, but not as dumb as Meg Whitman.

All competitive campaigns are in debt at all times. Every campaign cuts spending and lays off staff at some point. Every expenditure is scrutinized by the press. (Remember the $150,000 in clothing "scandal"?) Family expenses are paid out of the candidate's pocket. All major campaigns are torn between spending all they have to keep the public's attention but running out of money when it counts and not spending now and running the danger of not reaching or energizing voters. In today's world, spending is more important than ever.

As I understand it, Palin's current tour is paid for by SarahPAC and that won't be allowed during the campaign. To maintain the lifestyle, the convenience, the family presence, and the public eye will start costing millions. There are ways to get this money legally but every major candidate seems to end a campaign in debt that takes years to pay off.

Not her style. Winning the presidency is the only thing that makes it worthwhile. (Can anyone believe she hasn't looked at the sad spectacle of what John McCain has become?) She can't win. And she won't run.

Recovering Republican

06-16-2011, 07:12 AM

But you see, that's where you're wrong. You're forgetting the inherent stupidity of the average Republican voter.

They have no problem with someone like Romney getting wealthy by putting people out of their jobs. The REAL men, the REAL GOPer, the REAL rugged individualist wouldn't have lost his job. He would have stood apart from the pack and he would have been lauded for being superior to the losers around him.

Besides, of course your GOPer Six-Pack wants taxes reduced to nothing for the wealthy. Some day that'll be him, and he doesn't want his millions going to some damned welfare queen who was stupid enough to get outsourced by a true entrepreneur like Romney.

-Joe

I don't know if I'd call that stupidity. I think human nature is to think we are all better than we are.

Heck, I've been let go from jobs 3 times in the last 20 years. The first two times, I was back better than I was within a year, so yeah, I could see were your average Republican could have a righteous contempt for the "Welfare queen" who has been on the dole her entire life, because her mother and grandmother were on it.

This time, not so much, this recession is bad. Three years later, I haven't made a full recovery, and really, it's only a matter of time before this job is outsourced to Asia. I don't blame Obama, he was handed a real turd sandwich by Bush. I do fault him for not being a lot more aggressive on the issue, for toadying up to Wall Street, for maintaining the idiotic trade treaties that haven't worked to our benefit.

That's why I think a lot on the far right are not going to support Romney. When you get right down to it, he's a RINO with a weird religion that they don't understand who hires illegals to do his yardwork.

They figure that they can nominate Palin or Bachmann and probably beat this guy. And they might be right.

Heck, if unemployment is still at 9% in 2012, I might have a relapse.

Fear Itself

06-16-2011, 07:31 AM

They figure that they can nominate Palin or Bachmann and probably beat this guy. And they might be right.

Heck, if unemployment is still at 9% in 2012, I might have a relapse.This is what happens when fear overcomes reason.

Frostillicus

06-16-2011, 09:44 AM

I repeat, Palin is not going to run.

Running for president is very hard work. Sarah Palin is incredibly lazy. You are correct.

puddin

06-28-2011, 04:57 PM

I wish she would not raise her pitch tone while speaking. It's a microphone, don't shrill. Anyhow I go with her ideas. Anyone who voted for Edwards (twice) should ask what Sarah did that was worse than his deeds. Getting elected mayor in a small town (where everyone knows everyone's business back to the grandparents) is harder than getting elected senator (or president) just because you give good speeches. Maybe it's time for a different type of election...two men enter...one man leaves. Our grandkids will need such a "strongman" while they fight future terrorists on our very streets.

Chronos

06-28-2011, 05:02 PM

Getting elected mayor in a small town (where everyone knows everyone's business back to the grandparents) is harder than getting elected senator (or president) just because you give good speeches.How could this possibly be true? In either case, someone's got to win, and there are a lot more people trying for the Senate or Presidency than for City Hall. Wouldn't that logically imply that it's a lot easier to win the mayoral race?

And what in the world does Mad Max have to do with anything vaguely resembling a sensible system of government?

Merijeek

06-28-2011, 05:15 PM

Our grandkids will need such a "strongman" while they fight future terrorists on our very streets.

Wow. That's impressively stupid. Let me guess, you're buying up gold for when the gummint makes guns illegal?

-Joe

Chefguy

06-28-2011, 08:50 PM

Well, she's not going to take her home state (http://community.adn.com/adn/node/157457), apparently.

Recovering Republican

06-29-2011, 05:50 AM

This is what happens when fear overcomes reason.

No, this is what happens when a guy I didn't vote for to start with doesn't give us a compelling reason why he should keep the job.

Other than "the other guy might be worse".

But unemployment has been at or over 9% most of Obama's term. To find a president with consistantly higher unemployment, you'd have to go back to Herbert Hoover.

Personally, I think most of the GOP candidates are terrible, and I've been involved with GOP politics since 1980, and never saw such an awful bunch.

Fear Itself

06-29-2011, 10:21 AM

But unemployment has been at or over 9% most of Obama's term. To find a president with consistantly higher unemployment, you'd have to go back to Herbert Hoover. Why is this a compelling reason to vote for a Republican?

AbloyProtec

06-29-2011, 11:10 AM

Why is this a compelling reason to vote for a Republican?

Is that a serious question?

RTFirefly

06-29-2011, 11:41 AM

Running for president is very hard work. Sarah Palin is incredibly lazy. You are correct.Bingo. She's not going to run - she's just going to pretend to flirt with the idea as long as it can get her some more publicity.

Not only is she lazy, she's just too much of a flake in general to run a Presidential campaign.

There was a time when I thought she had a nontrivial chance to win the GOP nomination, but that was under the assumption that she'd hire professionals to run her campaign, and mostly follow their direction. It's clear now that she's constitutionally incapable of doing that. As a result, I don't think she's capable of winning a primary in a state other than Alaska, and even that's hardly a gimme.

Fear Itself

06-29-2011, 12:45 PM

Is that a serious question?Absolutely.

Are we to conclude that you believe that the Republicans, who caused unemployment to skyrocket in the first place, would do any better? Every elected Republican I have heard is clinging to the canard that tax cuts will create jobs; yet the Bush administration, after eight years of tax cuts, had the weakest job creation record in 50 years, weaker even than Obama. The clusterfuck caused by eight years of Republicans cannot be undone by three years of Democrats, and that certainly is not a reason to go back to the policies that ran the economy into the ditch in the first place.

AbloyProtec

06-29-2011, 02:27 PM

Absolutely.

Are we to conclude that you believe that the Republicans, who caused unemployment to skyrocket in the first place, would do any better? Every elected Republican I have heard is clinging to the canard that tax cuts will create jobs; yet the Bush administration, after eight years of tax cuts, had the weakest job creation record in 50 years, weaker even than Obama. The clusterfuck caused by eight years of Republicans cannot be undone by three years of Democrats, and that certainly is not a reason to go back to the policies that ran the economy into the ditch in the first place.

I'm not arguing who is right or wrong, Democrat or Republican.

But questioning someone's motives on the basis that they share an opinion different than yours? You're a stand-up guy.

Fear Itself

06-29-2011, 03:06 PM

I'm not arguing who is right or wrong, Democrat or Republican. When you are ready to take a position, get back to me.But questioning someone's motives on the basis that they share an opinion different than yours? On what basis would you have me argue a political position, if not a difference of opinion?

AbloyProtec

06-29-2011, 03:42 PM

When you are ready to take a position, get back to me.

Oh, so I need a candidate in mind in order to call you on your comment? Outstanding logic there! In that case, C'Thulhu it is.

On what basis would you have me argue a political position, if not a difference of opinion?

It's not that you're taking a different stance or arguing your point against his/hers. It's that you made an effort to undermine his/her position by questioning his/her reasoning.

It's as if you find people of differing opinions incapable of making rational choices.

pseudotriton ruber ruber

06-29-2011, 04:03 PM

People who want C'Thulhu for Prez might be capable of a rational thought?

Doctor

06-29-2011, 04:08 PM

People who want C'Thulhu for Prez might be capable of a rational thought?

Tired of choosing the lesser of two evils?

Voyager

06-29-2011, 04:37 PM

But unemployment has been at or over 9% most of Obama's term. To find a president with consistantly higher unemployment, you'd have to go back to Herbert Hoover.

No, FDR. The unemployment rate in 1936 was 16.9% Cite. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html). Notice that the GOP did not exactly win that election. And you should bump your tone arm - you are sounding like a broken record.

Little Nemo

06-29-2011, 06:48 PM

Is that a serious question?It was a legitimate question. Just because there had been a serious problem during a Presidential administration doesn't mean voters automatically switch to the other party.

There's a general perception that each party has its strengths and weaknesses. For example, the Republicans are perceived as strong on national defense so when voters feel national defense is a concern, they tend to swing towards the Republicans. The voters didn't reject the Republicans in 2004 because there had been a terrorist attack in 2001.

And the Democrats are widely perceived as the party that's better during economic hard times. So rather than get blame a Democratic administration for high employment and voting Republican, voters might swing towards the Democrats as a response to high employment.

Really Not All That Bright

06-29-2011, 06:49 PM

Palin did herself no damage with the people she targets as supporters.
Sure, but Palin is untouchable to those people. The problem is that she's toxic to the other ~70% of the population, including lots of Republicans. I think Palin could plausibly win the Republican nomination, assuming Romney has a Howard Dean moment. It's utterly implausible that she could win the general election.

Recovering Republican

06-29-2011, 08:26 PM

Why is this a compelling reason to vote for a Republican?

Well, how about, "When Republicans are in, Unemployment is usually NOT at 9%+ for three years. "

In fact, other than a peak under Reagan, unemployment under Republican presidents has rarely been that high.

Now, I'll give the devil his due. I'd LOVE to have Bill Clinton's economy back, and I wouldn't care how many interns he was diddling in the process.

As the man said, "It's the Economy, Stupid!"

Recovering Republican

06-29-2011, 08:29 PM

Why is this a compelling reason to vote for a Republican?

Because you have to go back to Hoover to find a bigger boob than Obama...

Recovering Republican

06-29-2011, 08:39 PM

No, FDR. The unemployment rate in 1936 was 16.9% Cite. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html). Notice that the GOP did not exactly win that election. And you should bump your tone arm - you are sounding like a broken record.

If the truth hurts... Frankly, I'm waiting for the June numbers to come out, where I'll get to say, "9.3%" unemployment.

To the point, FDR brought unemployment down from 25% to 16%. That actually is pretty impressive.

Obama can brag that he found an economy with a 6.7% unemployment rate and got it up to 10% before bringing it down to a mere 9%.

Like I said, I'm disillusioned with the Republican Party, but I have serious doubts Obama can win a second term. So I'm looking at this like "Who can I live with?"

Little Nemo

06-29-2011, 09:07 PM

Well, how about, "When Republicans are in, Unemployment is usually NOT at 9%+ for three years. "

In fact, other than a peak under Reagan, unemployment under Republican presidents has rarely been that high.

Now, I'll give the devil his due. I'd LOVE to have Bill Clinton's economy back, and I wouldn't care how many interns he was diddling in the process.

As the man said, "It's the Economy, Stupid!"It's true that unemployment under Republican presidents is rarely as high as 9%+. But it's also true the that unemployment under Democratic presidents is rarely as high as 9%+.

The last time we had unemployment this high was, as you noted, 1982 and 1983 - and Reagan was re-elected by a landslide. So all we can say is that there is too little evidence to make a clear prediction. Will the voters in 2012 blame Obama and vote him out? Or will they say "Screw those conservatives. I've been out of work for two years and I want some free cheese. I'm voting for those reckless spending liberals."

Chronos

06-30-2011, 12:33 AM

And of course, the one time that unemployment was consistently higher, was under a president who did exactly what the current Republicans are saying government should do.

Recovering Republican

06-30-2011, 05:44 AM

It's true that unemployment under Republican presidents is rarely as high as 9%+. But it's also true the that unemployment under Democratic presidents is rarely as high as 9%+.

The last time we had unemployment this high was, as you noted, 1982 and 1983 - and Reagan was re-elected by a landslide. So all we can say is that there is too little evidence to make a clear prediction. Will the voters in 2012 blame Obama and vote him out? Or will they say "Screw those conservatives. I've been out of work for two years and I want some free cheese. I'm voting for those reckless spending liberals."

The problem is, the liberals don't have anything to spend at this point. I guess they still have a pretty good supply of free cheese, tho'.

Incidently, it was Reagan who gave away the cheese. Carter was happy to let it rot in warehouses.

The point was, at this point in 1983, unemploymet dropped pretty rapidly. It went from a high of 10.8 in December of 82 to 8.3 in December of 83 to 7.2 by the time the president stood for re-election. In short, what you had there was a classic "V" shaped recession.

This one is looking more like a "U" or a "L" And honestly, the image of Obama with an L on his forehead seems kind of fitting...

There's really nothing to indicate we are going to have a substatial drop any time soon. Oh, companies are hiring- IN CHINA.

Which brings me back to my point. If we are going to be stuck with a Republican, which one can we live with. Which one is not going to make us grind our teeth every day?

Personally, I don't think Palin is running. Bachmann is going to probably win the TeaParty vote, and the establishment is getting behind Romney.

Perry is looking a lot better.

gonzomax

06-30-2011, 07:57 PM

Bush took over with a full employment economy . He fought hard to gut the tax structure for the rich and run 2 wars off the books. He led a crash that put us in a depression. That is what you think is a good Republican administration that we should hope to return to?
He oversaw a world economic crash of his parties making. He trashed regulation. He started 2 wars.
The Repubs control the messaging ,but I don't see how they can erase their fingerprints from the scene of that crime. Only somehow if a Den cannot fix the mess in a couple years, it must be because they are incompetent. I guess you were not alive when the Repubs filibustered every program Obama offered. They fought like hell to keep him from fixing the mess and they still are. They cut the stimulus and forced another damn tax cut for the rich and corporations.
Sure, its Obama's fault. He had 2 years to fix an 8 year mess and had to fight a filibustering right wing Republican party every step of the way.

Recovering Republican

07-01-2011, 06:18 AM

you know what, Gonzo, I did okay in the Bush years. So did a lot of people I know. Yeah, there were periods I found myself unemployed (late 2001 after 9/11, and a couple weeks in 2008). But there were years in there that I made pretty awesome money.

I don't know anyone who is doing so well now.

Blaming the last guy only gets you so far. It gets you nowhere when you've been on the job for two years, and things have gotten worse than when the last guy was there.

lilbug

07-01-2011, 06:39 PM

I don't think Palin will run. I think her whole obective is to influence voters to vote Obama out, and she can do that without throwing her hat in the ring.

Little Nemo

07-01-2011, 07:35 PM

Recovering Republican

07-02-2011, 07:15 AM

Uh oh. Sounds like he's having a relapse.

No, guy, it's not a relapse, it's an analysis.

In 1980, (the first election I voted in), Ronald Reagan asked a very simple question.

"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

In 2004, I could say, yes. Despite a breif period of unemployment in 2001, in 2004, I was making about $7,000 more a year than I was making in 2000. I was in a good job I liked, I just bought a new home.

In 2012, unless something drastically changes, I would probably have to say "no". I am making less than I did in 2008. I'm burdened with more bills. I'm nervous about whether my company will relocate my job to Asia. My home is only worth about 70% of what I paid for it.

So if I were voting on that basis and that basis only yeah, I'd have to give the GOP candidate a serious look.

Of course, it really depends on who they nominate. I won't ever vote for Ron Paul, Palin, Romney or Huntsman. I'd be reluctant to vote for Bachmann, Gingrich, or Cain, but if the economy goes on the way it has, I'd have to give them a look. I would like to see Pawlenty win, or perhaps Rudy Guiliani jump into the race.

Frankly, I looked at Obama's presser on Wednesday, where he wasn't offering solutions, he was looking for people to blame. This is never a good sign. It should worry you more than it does me. I don't have any emotional investment in Obama, I didn't vote for him.

China Guy

07-02-2011, 09:43 AM

Recovering Republican

07-02-2011, 09:58 AM

Not sure why you're making less than in 2008. Being burdened with more bills seems to be something you're responsible for since your tax bill went down (or your rebate) went up under Obama. Not sure what you're doing that you would be worried about it being outsourced to Asia? Finally, your home being worth only 70% of what you paid for it was because of Bush and not because of anything Obama did or didn't do.

Are you this simplistic over global warming, autism or the weather forecast?

Not simplistic.

Obama isn't getting the job done. Period.

He promised me the unemployment rate wouldn't go over 8%. It's been at around 9% his whole term.

And, yeah, he keeps these awful trade treaties in place, so my company looks at the slave labor market in China and figures it's easier to outsource. (I blame both parties for free trade, really. It's an idiotic idea.)

Point is, your boy had three years, and things are more effed up than when he got in. Time for new leadership. Pointing the finger at the last guy isn't leadership. Blaming the Earthquake in Japan isn't leadership. Blaming the Libya crisis isn't leadership.

It's simple in that asking the Reagan question, the answer comes off as "no", things have not gotten better since this clown's been in office.

Something else Reagan said which was awesome, which we can apply to Obama.

"Recession is when your neighbor loses his job.
Depression is when you lose your job.
Recovery is when Mr. Carter (or Mr. Obama in this case) loses his job."

Sam Stone

07-02-2011, 04:09 PM

Not sure why you're making less than in 2008. Being burdened with more bills seems to be something you're responsible for since your tax bill went down (or your rebate) went up under Obama. Not sure what you're doing that you would be worried about it being outsourced to Asia? Finally, your home being worth only 70% of what you paid for it was because of Bush and not because of anything Obama did or didn't do.

Are you this simplistic over global warming, autism or the weather forecast?

Home price runups had nothing to do with Bush. They were the result of Greenspan's holding interest rates low, which caused an asset bubble in real estate, and of mortgage securitization which took away bank risk and gave them the incentive to offer mortages to people who clearly could not afford them. None of this was initiated by the Bush administration. The Fed is an independent agency, and the chairman of the Fed had been there since Clinton. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were cheerleaded by Democrats, and Democrats also had oversight responsibilities for them.

In fact, Bush administration officials went to Congress several times to warn them about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac taking on too much risk and extending themselves too far, but Congress refused to listen. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank both gave multiple speeches in which they declared Fannie and Freddie to be healthy and sustainable, and they demagogued the issue by claiming that Republicans were trying to use scare tactics to prevent poor people from taking part in the home ownership revolution.

You can make plausible claims for lots of failures of the Bush administration. What you can't do is claim that it was responsible for the housing boom.

pseudotriton ruber ruber

07-02-2011, 04:15 PM

Assuming you're correct about this, Sam--I have no idea about the facts or the responsibility, you realize you're knocking the hell of out RR's entire argument about "Obama's watch, Obama's responsiblity." According to him, Bush needs to take the hit for housing prices because he was so incompetent and weak about coercing Greenspan to take different positions on the prices of housing. Either there are some things beyond a President's control or there aren't, and we're either going to be reasonable and consistent about blaming them for everything that happened during their terms or we're not. Where do you stand on this issue?

Ca3799

07-02-2011, 04:36 PM

Back to Palin... Does anyone know how her movie debut did?bdid it go the way of 'Altal Shrugged'?

a35362

07-02-2011, 05:34 PM

The Tomatometer (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/771245638/) has no information yet. The IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1961604/) says it won't officially be released until the 15th, but here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1961604/externalreviews) is their External Reviews page.

Knorf

07-02-2011, 05:44 PM

In 2012, unless something drastically changes, I would probably have to say "no". I am making less than I did in 2008. I'm burdened with more bills. I'm nervous about whether my company will relocate my job to Asia. My home is only worth about 70% of what I paid for it.
You'd seriously blame Obama for all of that? :rolleyes:

ElvisL1ves

07-02-2011, 06:24 PM

Recovering Republican

07-02-2011, 07:11 PM

You'd seriously blame Obama for all of that? :rolleyes:

Uh, yeah, actually, I do.

I blame him for not being a leader and not knowing what he is doing.

All I see from the man is a lot of finger-pointing and no leadership.

Recovering Republican

07-02-2011, 07:15 PM

When the economy is going well, and the House is held by the Republicans, we hear about how spending bills originate there. When there are problems, and the White House is held by the Democrats, it becomes their fault.

Victory has a thousand fathers, and failure is an orphan.

So what else is new.

Let's be honest, if the economy turns around in the next year, Obama will be re-elected easily and kudos to him.

Bush brought us out of the 9/11 recession, Clinton brought us out of Bush-41's recession, Reagan brought us out of Carter's recession. they probably benefitted from other people's policies and hard work, but it was their watch.

Ford, Carter and Bush-41 had crappy economies, and the voters found their asses the easiest ones to take it out on. Fair, unfair, that's what happens.

I guess if Obama was more of a leader, I'd have more respect for him. He just seems to be engaging in finger-pointing now.

Knorf

07-02-2011, 07:26 PM

I think the GOP's transparent tactics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/dems-dig-in-gop-trying-to-sabotage-economy-on-purpose/2011/03/03/AGnrHetH_blog.html?hpid=z6) are not unknown to a large segment of likely voters.

All I see from the man is a lot of finger-pointing and no leadership.
You are prejudiced to see what you want to see, that much is very clear. Here's a website (http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/), just for you. Enjoy.

Fear Itself

07-03-2011, 12:33 AM

Frankly, I looked at Obama's presser on Wednesday, where he wasn't offering solutions...He advocated increasing revenue by closing tax loopholes and ending subsidies in addition to spending cuts, which is a far better than the plan proposed by the Republicans. How can you ask the middle class to make all the sacrifices while the top two percent reap all the benefits and give up nothing? That is going to be a tough sell in 2012.

Recovering Republican

07-03-2011, 06:29 AM

I think the GOP's transparent tactics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/dems-dig-in-gop-trying-to-sabotage-economy-on-purpose/2011/03/03/AGnrHetH_blog.html?hpid=z6) are not unknown to a large segment of likely voters.

You are prejudiced to see what you want to see, that much is very clear. Here's a website (http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/), just for you. Enjoy.

Guy, I saw that a few years ago... frankly, it's pathetic..

I think Obama needs to stop with the blame game, and find Harry Truman's sign somewhere there in a White House closet. It's the one that says "The Buck Stops Here".

Recovering Republican

07-03-2011, 06:33 AM

He advocated increasing revenue by closing tax loopholes and ending subsidies in addition to spending cuts, which is a far better than the plan proposed by the Republicans. How can you ask the middle class to make all the sacrifices while the top two percent reap all the benefits and give up nothing? That is going to be a tough sell in 2012.

Actually, what he did was play the class warfare card. Now he wants to tax the corporate jets he encouraged companies to buy in the Stimulus in the first place.

The Republicans have made it clear, they aren't going to go along with ANY tax increases. As long as they control congress, that's just how it's going to be. So you might as well let the cuts fall where they may, and when we still have a deficit, when there is nothing else you can possibly cut, then come back and talk about revenues.

Chronos

07-03-2011, 10:34 AM

So, giving up and letting the Republicans call all the shots is your idea of "exhibiting strong leadership"?

Recovering Republican

07-03-2011, 11:04 AM

So, giving up and letting the Republicans call all the shots is your idea of "exhibiting strong leadership"?

As opposed to making a fight that you can't possibly win because NO ONE wants to go along with it.

When you have a major political movement called the "Taxed Enough Already" Party, and they just swept your party out of congress, um, really, advocating more taxes? Don't think so.

pseudotriton ruber ruber

07-03-2011, 11:40 AM

This is funny, that you think Obama would exhibit strong leadership by signing on to the opposition's agenda. I'd think you'd give him leadership credit for opposing them, however effectively or not. Whether he will prevail, of course, is another story, but it just cracks me up that you distinguish between his policies and yours (excuse me, those of the T.E.A. party, which you claim to despise) and claim that he is showing poor leadership skills by not following the T.E.A. party's lead. Try again, guy.

pseudotriton ruber ruber

07-03-2011, 11:41 AM

What terrifies you, of course, is that he might find enough popular support to tax the hell out of millioniares and leave the tea party suckups to their overlords out in the breeze.

Recovering Republican

07-03-2011, 12:19 PM

What terrifies you, of course, is that he might find enough popular support to tax the hell out of millioniares and leave the tea party suckups to their overlords out in the breeze.

I'd personally have no problem if he let the Bush Tax cuts expire. But the Republicans played chicken with him on that one and he blinked. Now he's going to try to get some taxes in when he's in the position where all the House has to do is attach their cuts to the debt ceiling legistlation- oh, let's say around July 20 or so- and he either has to veto it (and risk default and a second dip in the recession) or accept it.

So here's his real problem. The Republicans have him pegged.

This is funny, that you think Obama would exhibit strong leadership by signing on to the opposition's agenda. I'd think you'd give him leadership credit for opposing them, however effectively or not. Whether he will prevail, of course, is another story, but it just cracks me up that you distinguish between his policies and yours (excuse me, those of the T.E.A. party, which you claim to despise) and claim that he is showing poor leadership skills by not following the T.E.A. party's lead. Try again, guy.

Well, gee, let's look at that. It's not the Tea Party's agenda, it's everyone's agenda. EVERYONE thinks we need to get the deficit under control and everyone thinks we need to get the spending under control. Because unlike Greece, no one is going to bail us out.

To the point, though. Bush lost control of Congress in 2006. Clinton lost control of Congress in 1994. They still both managed to remain fully in command of the debate. Clinton won the budget battles. Bush managed to initate a surge and get TARP passed. They both managed to co-opt the positions of the oppossition and regain the momentum.

Neither one made analogies to their kid's homework and got called the D-word by one of their supporters.

Really Not All That Bright

07-03-2011, 12:41 PM

It's not the Tea Party's agenda, it's everyone's agenda. EVERYONE thinks we need to get the deficit under control and everyone thinks we need to get the spending under control. Because unlike Greece, no one is going to bail us out.
This is overly simplistic. Everyone agrees we need to get the deficit under control, but everyone agrees on how. With taxes at their lowest as a percentage of GDP right now (at least over the last 70 years), the smart money is on raising them.

Sam Stone

07-03-2011, 12:52 PM

This is overly simplistic. Everyone agrees we need to get the deficit under control, but everyone agrees on how. With taxes at their lowest as a percentage of GDP right now (at least over the last 70 years), the smart money is on raising them.

Yeah, but the problem is that where they really need to be raised is on the middle class - which has an effective tax rate of something like 11%. And because they make up the bulk of the population, they make up the bulk of the tax base. But no one wants to raise their taxes.

Republicans want to lower taxes further, which is insane.

The Democrats think they can solve all the issues by hitting the top 5% of the taxpaying public - which is insane.

As usual, the whole debate has become about taxes, and who should be taxed, and both parties are wrong about it.

What both parties should be focusing on right now is structural growth. Not temporary stimulus gimmicks or dicking around more with the money supply, but working to get economic growth rolling again. That means policies that promote fiscal stability, reduce uncertainty, and remove barriers to permanent investment decisions and permanent job creation, and a strategy to get entitlements under control to remove the threat of future tax hikes or fiscal meltdown.

Recovering Republican

07-03-2011, 01:01 PM

This is overly simplistic. Everyone agrees we need to get the deficit under control, but everyone agrees on how. With taxes at their lowest as a percentage of GDP right now (at least over the last 70 years), the smart money is on raising them.

Except there is no political will to do so.

The smart thing to do would be to make cuts- lots of them. Show you are serious about cutting. Cut until it hurts, so people know that there is no more to be cut. THen and only then can you come back and sell a tax increase.

pseudotriton ruber ruber

07-03-2011, 02:08 PM

There is always more to cut. Cut on Medicare benefits, cut on Social Security, cut the Department of Education, cut anything but defense. If it doesn't work, say you didn't cut enough, and cut again.

Recovering Republican

07-03-2011, 02:31 PM

There is always more to cut. Cut on Medicare benefits, cut on Social Security, cut the Department of Education, cut anything but defense. If it doesn't work, say you didn't cut enough, and cut again.

Well, you see, we got this funny thing called "Democracy". There would be a certain point where people would say, "Okay, we've cut enough."

And frankly, I'd be happy to be rid of the whole Department of Education and ANY Federal involvement. Slice that putrid appendage off at the root.

I'm open to defense cuts. I don't think we need to be building stealth fighters or aircraft carriers or anything else that isn't needed lacking a Cold War class enemy.

China Guy

07-03-2011, 03:39 PM

Yeah, but the problem is that where they really need to be raised is on the middle class - which has an effective tax rate of something like 11%. And because they make up the bulk of the population, they make up the bulk of the tax base. But no one wants to raise their taxes.

Republicans want to lower taxes further, which is insane.

The Democrats think they can solve all the issues by hitting the top 5% of the taxpaying public - which is insane.

As usual, the whole debate has become about taxes, and who should be taxed, and both parties are wrong about it.

What both parties should be focusing on right now is structural growth. Not temporary stimulus gimmicks or dicking around more with the money supply, but working to get economic growth rolling again. That means policies that promote fiscal stability, reduce uncertainty, and remove barriers to permanent investment decisions and permanent job creation, and a strategy to get entitlements under control to remove the threat of future tax hikes or fiscal meltdown.Seems to be that Republicans want to lower taxes further, which I agree with you is insane.

Seems like the Democrats are starting with the easiest income raising tactic - eliminating tax breaks on millionaires and/or raising taxes on millionaires. I think you're exaggerating wildly that Dems think taxing such a tiny base will fix the problem. Rather, that taxing millionaires is a good start and why piss off their base now with raising taxes on the middle class when taxes on the rich haven't been solved yet.

There are 3 things that can be done: get non-discretionary spending under control, raise taxes/eleminate breaks, and grow the economy.

Fear Itself

07-04-2011, 01:27 AM

The Republicans have made it clear, they aren't going to go along with ANY tax increases. As long as they control congress, that's just how it's going to be. So you might as well let the cuts fall where they may, and when we still have a deficit, when there is nothing else you can possibly cut, then come back and talk about revenues.And you might as well accept that the President will not sign a debt ceiling increase that does not have tax increases. That's just the way it is. So Republicans and better get ready for their corporate handlers to jerk their chain HARD, because that is what happens when you throw a shoe into the economic machinery that makes Republican donors rich.

Republicans will fold like a cheap folding thing.

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 05:27 AM

And you might as well accept that the President will not sign a debt ceiling increase that does not have tax increases. That's just the way it is. So Republicans and better get ready for their corporate handlers to jerk their chain HARD, because that is what happens when you throw a shoe into the economic machinery that makes Republican donors rich.

Republicans will fold like a cheap folding thing.

we'll see, but I doubt it. I don't think the guys who really run the GOP, the guys who planted the Astro-Turf that is the TEA Party really want their taxes to go up, either.

If we default, people aren't going to blame Congress, they will blame Obama.

He blinked on the Bush tax cuts, he blinked on Netanyahu, he'll blink here.

Fear Itself

07-04-2011, 09:23 AM

we'll see, but I doubt it. I don't think the guys who really run the GOP, the guys who planted the Astro-Turf that is the TEA Party really want their taxes to go up, either. They will do cost a benefit analysis and conclude their loss from a default debacle are far worse than any tax increases proposed by Obama. Corporate strategists are nothing if not good accountants.If we default, people aren't going to blame Congress, they will blame Obama. Wishful thinking. Moderates and independents see what the Republicans are doing, and they will punish them accordingly.
He blinked on the Bush tax cuts, he blinked on Netanyahu, he'll blink here.He has an ace in the hole here, though. He knows who controls the GOP, and he knows they know default is much worse than tax increases. Unlike Republicans, who frequently speak without considering the consequences, the Obama news conference was a calculated tactic to call their bluff and put them on the defensive. It worked.

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 09:29 AM

They will do cost a benefit analysis and conclude their loss from a default debacle are far worse than any tax increases proposed by Obama. Corporate strategists are nothing if not good accountants.Wishful thinking. Moderates and independents see what the Republicans are doing, and they will punish them accordingly.He has an ace in the hole here, though. He knows who controls the GOP, and he knows they know default is much worse than tax increases. Unlike Republicans, who frequently speak without considering the consequences, the Obama news conference was a calculated tactic to call their bluff and put them on the defensive. It worked.

I consider myself a moderate, unless you talk to the folks over at Town Hall, who apparently think I'm a socialist because I don't think ObamaCare or RomneyCare are that bad.

As for his "news conference", sorry, man, even Mark Halperin (a guy who buried stories in 2008 if they reflected badly on Obama) said he came off like a "Dick".

Incidently, I think that we really should raise taxes, no dispute about that. I just kind of doubt that Obama has enough of a spine to get the job done. He hasn't shown much of one so far.

Fear Itself

07-04-2011, 09:36 AM

As for his "news conference", sorry, man, even Mark Halperin (a guy who buried stories in 2008 if they reflected badly on Obama) said he came off like a "Dick". "Dick" is the appropriate response to the childish tantrums of Cantor and Boehner; nice guys finish last. Are you willing to wager there will be no revenue increases in the final agreement? Because if there are, that means Republicans folded, not Obama.

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 10:03 AM

"Dick" is the appropriate response to the childish tantrums of Cantor and Boehner; nice guys finish last. Are you willing to wager there will be no revenue increases in the final agreement? Because if there are, that means Republicans folded, not Obama.

I'm just hoping it gets done so we don't collapse the economy.

And frankly, what's so "childish". These guys ran on the platform of no new taxes. That's what the voters obviously wanted, right?

I think it's wrong to go back and ask the voters for more money (let's not forget, the Bush Tax cuts are going to expire on their own a year, anyway) when they haven't gone through that budget with a fine tooth comb and cut out every bit of waste.

This is, incidently, what every business has had to do in order to get through this recession. It's what the states are having to do. So why can't the Federal Government do this?

China Guy

07-04-2011, 10:10 AM

I consider myself a moderate, unless you talk to the folks over at Town Hall, who apparently think I'm a socialist because I don't think ObamaCare or RomneyCare are that bad.

As for his "news conference", sorry, man, even Mark Halperin (a guy who buried stories in 2008 if they reflected badly on Obama) said he came off like a "Dick".

Incidently, I think that we really should raise taxes, no dispute about that. I just kind of doubt that Obama has enough of a spine to get the job done. He hasn't shown much of one so far.So, are you going on record as being for Obama/RomneyCare and raising taxes?

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 10:17 AM

So, are you going on record as being for Obama/RomneyCare and raising taxes?

I'd go further. I think we should have a Canada style system of Health Care.

We spend more than any other country in the world on Heath Care, per capita, but we have the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world and the lowest life expectency.

I think Romney and Obama made the mistake of conceding too much to the special interests, but it was probably better than doing nothing.

(You guys make the mistake of thinking I'm a doctrinaire conservative. My views really waiver on what issue you are talking about. I'm pretty liberal on abortion, gay rights and health care. I'm conservative on defense issues and education issues. My overall problem with obama is his competence, not his views.)

As for raising taxes, I'm not thrilled with the concept. I think a lot of us on the lower end are paying too much through the death by a thousand cuts system they use to hide how much they are taking us for. I have no problem returning the top rates on the wealthy to where Clinton had them.

China Guy

07-04-2011, 11:16 AM

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 11:28 AM

I'm assuming that "conservative" for defense means having a strong (the strongest?) military that can project force.

What does "conservative" mean for education issues? Equal weighting to creationism? Getting rid of all federal oversight? Cutting special needs programs? Private schools? Not trying to be snarky but I really don't know what "conservative" education means.

My views on defense. - Having an effective military. I think (and having seen the system from the inside) we do a lot of things wrong. We have underemphasized ground forces and overemphasized naval and air forces, on the theory that all three services should get the same amount of money.

I think we need to get out of NATO, because we are wedded to a corpse there. If the European Union, which is pretty wealthy, wants to project military power, let them spend their own money doing it. I also think we need to disengage from the middle east as much as possible. Playing hall monitor between various tribes is not what our troops should be doing.

My view on education-

School Choice.

Limiting the power of the Teacher's unions to contracts only, and not giving them veto power over firing bad teachers.

Letting school boards, not the courts or the ACLU determine cirriculum. Sorry, if the majority of the people in a community really want to teach creationism, that should be their choice.

It's certainly a lot better than what happens now. They don't teach either. Schools skip right over evolution because they don't want the hassles, and because Texas dominates the textbook market, they deemphasize it. . You'd probably accomplish more teaching both.

For special needs, setting standards and realistic goals, and not letting this tail wag the dog. Not declaring every kid ADHD to get more funding. Not spending exhorbitant amounts of money on kids who have limited potential while ignoring kids with more potential.

Also, not everyone needs to go to college. There should be vocational training in the schools. Right now very few schools have auto shops or wood shops because they take away from college prep. (And this isn't limited to Public Schools.)

CaptMurdock

07-04-2011, 12:08 PM

Sorry, if the majority of the people in a community really want to teach creationism, that should be their choice.

Fine. Then I'll start a petition in my community to teach that the moon is made of green cheese and that pi = 3.0. Hey, I'm pretty persuasive, I could get it done...

Teaching incorrect things is incorrect. What part of that do you not get? Stupid is stupid -- faith doesn't make it any smarter.

Fear Itself

07-04-2011, 01:31 PM

And frankly, what's so "childish". These guys ran on the platform of no new taxes. That's what the voters obviously wanted, right?It is childish to walk out of negotiations and risk default because Democrats won't let you do everything your way. Republicans see compromise as them getting 90% of what they wanted and Democrats getting nothing. They forget they hold only one house of Congress and none of the White House. Do they not respect the will of the voters who supported Democrats in the Senate and Obama in the White House?I think it's wrong to go back and ask the voters for more money (let's not forget, the Bush Tax cuts are going to expire on their own a year, anyway) when they haven't gone through that budget with a fine tooth comb and cut out every bit of waste.I think it is wrong to demand severe cuts that affect the middle class, while giving the wealthiest 2% a pass on making any sort of sacrifice at all.

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 01:37 PM

Well, then, that's a philosophical difference, then.

I've worked in government, in both the military and twice for the Census bureau. There's a lot of waste that can be cut before you come back to any tax payer and ask for more.

I do think eventually, we are going to have to raise taxes, but not until we've fixed everything else.

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 01:40 PM

Fine. Then I'll start a petition in my community to teach that the moon is made of green cheese and that pi = 3.0. Hey, I'm pretty persuasive, I could get it done...

Teaching incorrect things is incorrect. What part of that do you not get? Stupid is stupid -- faith doesn't make it any smarter.

Correct and incorrect are largely points of view.

To a lot of people (not me, again) that God had a role in creation is the correct answer. And frankly, it's not like you can prove he didn't. All you can really prove is that life in the past looked different than it does now.

Fear Itself

07-04-2011, 01:43 PM

I've worked in government, in both the military and twice for the Census bureau. There's a lot of waste that can be cut before you come back to any tax payer and ask for more. And I suppose only Republicans possess the judgement to determine what is waste and what is absolutely essential to national security? :dubious:

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 02:04 PM

And I suppose only Republicans possess the judgement to determine what is waste and what is absolutely essential to national security? :dubious:

How about this. Go to Zero-based budgetting. Instead of "Well, you'll get what you used last year", make them define every program and determine the merits.

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 02:05 PM

Hey, this is going to be totally off topic, but when you have a message board that is called "Straight Dope" and you say you are "Recovering", the banner ads give you a bunch of addition rehabilitation links...

Fear Itself

07-04-2011, 02:26 PM

How about this. Go to Zero-based budgetting. Instead of "Well, you'll get what you used last year", make them define every program and determine the merits.I am fundamentally against requiring sacrifices by everyone at the snotty end on the economy, and none from the top end, so, no, that is unacceptable. It is a matter of fairness and balance.

Why don't Republicans think everyone should share the pain? And why would Democrats be inclined to kowtow to Republicans who think compromise is a dirty word? Everybody should give up something. Democrats have demonstrated they are willing to make deep spending cuts, against their own political interests; what have Republicans done to reciprocate?

I say if they don't yield on revenue, fuck 'em, let's go to the brink. Republicans have much more to lose than Democrats; Democrats know that, and deep inside Republicans know that also.

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 07:21 PM

I am fundamentally against requiring sacrifices by everyone at the snotty end on the economy, and none from the top end, so, no, that is unacceptable. It is a matter of fairness and balance.

Why don't Republicans think everyone should share the pain? And why would Democrats be inclined to kowtow to Republicans who think compromise is a dirty word? Everybody should give up something. Democrats have demonstrated they are willing to make deep spending cuts, against their own political interests; what have Republicans done to reciprocate?

I say if they don't yield on revenue, fuck 'em, let's go to the brink. Republicans have much more to lose than Democrats; Democrats know that, and deep inside Republicans know that also.

Well, here;s the problem.

Bottom line. Government spends too much. Government spends more than they take in. And usually, when they get a tax increase, they usually increase spending. So, no, I want to see cuts long before ANYONE comes back here and tells me that we need to tax anyone any more.

I think taxes on the rich are probably inevitable, but I'll be damned if I'll go along with it until government has had to do what I'VE had to do in this recession- tighten the belt and spend more responsibly.

Zakalwe

07-04-2011, 09:28 PM

Fear Itself

07-05-2011, 12:26 AM

So, no, I want to see cuts long before ANYONE comes back here and tells me that we need to tax anyone any more.Then further debate between us is pointless, because I cannot support any deficit reduction that does not also include revenue enhancement. Full stop.

Neither of our positions are negotiable, because they are each based on diametrically opposed philosophies of government, as well as two unresolvable personal opinions.

Have a nice day.

CaptMurdock

07-05-2011, 01:14 AM

Correct and incorrect are largely points of view.

To a lot of people (not me, again) that God had a role in creation is the correct answer. And frankly, it's not like you can prove he didn't. All you can really prove is that life in the past looked different than it does now.

Yes, that's right, I can. And as I can, I refuse to cater to teaching the idea that the Earth is six thousand years old and man was created purely out of dust in the Garden of Eden. I will not cater to that any more than I would approve of teaching that the Earth is flat. That those two memes are incorrect is not a "point of view," that is hard fact. So don't even try to Obi-wan your way around it.

As for proving that God didn't "have a role in" the creation of the universe... Google up the fallacy of attempting to prove a negative. You might find it interesting reading. Then again, you might not.

RTFirefly

07-05-2011, 04:54 AM

The Democrats think they can solve all the issues by hitting the top 5% of the taxpaying public - which is insane. You keep on saying this.

This is the Dope.

Back it up.

devonshire

07-05-2011, 05:04 AM

Recovering Republican

07-05-2011, 05:15 AM

There is no way in heck that Palin would win. First she seems highly uneducated when it comes to relying on history. She is a "showboat", has no gravitas, and is a cheerleader for the conservative cause and not the middle. She is all over the map and is indecisive. The most telling character trait she has is "greed". In my view she resigned as Alaska's governor to make money and gain fame. She is nothing more than a "social gadfly" and I do not believe the majority of people in this great country believe that she has any ability to get this country on the right track.

One more time.

I personally don't think Palin is actually in the running or planning to run.

But the things you cite as reasons why she 'can't' win are typical elitist thinking. They don't matter to most Americans. What matters to Americans right now is that the economy is a mess. They are looking for someone dynamic to fix it.

Palin is just "showboat" enough to convince them she could do that.

Now, all that said, we are really in the "fantasy football" stage of the nominating process right now. Bachmann and Palin are the base's dream dates, but they m ight settle on Romney or Perry on the theory they are more "electable".

The problem, of course, is that John McCain was supposed to be more electable than Huckabee. John Kerry was supposed to be more electable than Howard Dean. Walter Mondale was supposed to be more electable than Gary Hart.

Electable usually means, "We're not enthusiastic about these guys, and you shouldn't be, either."

Recovering Republican

07-05-2011, 06:16 AM

Yes, that's right, I can. And as I can, I refuse to cater to teaching the idea that the Earth is six thousand years old and man was created purely out of dust in the Garden of Eden. I will not cater to that any more than I would approve of teaching that the Earth is flat. That those two memes are incorrect is not a "point of view," that is hard fact. So don't even try to Obi-wan your way around it.

As for proving that God didn't "have a role in" the creation of the universe... Google up the fallacy of attempting to prove a negative. You might find it interesting reading. Then again, you might not.

(waves hand) "These are not the Droids you're looking for!"

Of course, nobody is advocating about teaching about the Garden of Eden or that the earth is six thousand years old. They are advocating that maybe there is evidence life is intelligently designed and that there might be a purpose behind it.

The current solution, has resulted in neither theory being taught, because no one wants the hassles of a kid standing up in the middle of class and spewing creationist talking points.

So as a result, it isn't just that 55% believe the talking snake theory of the origin of life, it's that so few people even understand evolution. A recent poll showed only 19% of adult Americans could define evolution and natural selection.

Then again, large percentages of Americans believe in UFO's(39%), Ghosts(51%), and Bigfoot(18%).

so why not teach both, and then let people make up their own minds, because that's pretty much what they are going to do anyway.

amanset

07-05-2011, 06:48 AM

so why not teach both, and then let people make up their own minds, because that's pretty much what they are going to do anyway.

Why not teach them that 2+2=5 at the same time and let them make their minds up later which is right?

Recovering Republican

07-05-2011, 07:08 AM

Why not teach them that 2+2=5 at the same time and let them make their minds up later which is right?

Fallacous argument and you know it.

I can prove 2+2 does not equal five.

I can't prove God doesn't exist, or that he didn't guide evolution and neither can you.

Little Nemo

07-05-2011, 08:30 AM

so why not teach both, and then let people make up their own minds, because that's pretty much what they are going to do anyway.Because they're no equivalent. Evolution is science based on objective evidence. Intelligent design is a religious belief based on faith.

Little Nemo

07-05-2011, 08:33 AM

Fallacous argument and you know it.

I can prove 2+2 does not equal five.

I can't prove God doesn't exist, or that he didn't guide evolution and neither can you.You can't prove the God doesn't guide gravity either. Maybe he's pushing everything down. But mathematics, gravity, and evolution all work without God being necessary so God shouldn't be added in to the subjects when they're taught.

Fear Itself

07-05-2011, 08:35 AM

I can prove 2+2 does not equal five. Not if God tells me 2+2=5. Prove that he didn't.

Chronos

07-05-2011, 12:51 PM

Nobody's arguing about God subtly guiding evolution, or whatever. The "Intelligent Design" folks might claim publicly that that's their argument, but if you dig into what they say internally, or to their base, the only reason they want to get that in the schools is as a stepping stone towards their goal of 6000-year-old, Biblically literal, seven-day creationism. Which, while not exactly provably false, does require if it's true that God is a damned dirty liar.

gonzomax

07-05-2011, 01:05 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/bristol-palin-sarah-palin_n_890410.html
I must apologize for doubting Sarah's smarts. Here is her daughter explaining how awesomely smart Sarah is and how awesome it would be for America if she became president.

jsgoddess

07-05-2011, 01:14 PM

I'm subscribed to most of the threads in this Election forum, and right now every thread is the same. Can we please keep the Palin thread about Palin, the Bachmann thread about Bachmann, etc?

gonzomax

07-07-2011, 02:32 PM

Well, here;s the problem.

Bottom line. Government spends too much. Government spends more than they take in. And usually, when they get a tax increase, they usually increase spending. So, no, I want to see cuts long before ANYONE comes back here and tells me that we need to tax anyone any more.

I think taxes on the rich are probably inevitable, but I'll be damned if I'll go along with it until government has had to do what I'VE had to do in this recession- tighten the belt and spend more responsibly.
Bottom line, taxes at lowest since the 1950s. Another bottom, in the 1950s businesses kicked in about 25 percent of the budget. It is now down to under 6. Bottom line taxes on the rich have been slashed over and over while their wealth grows and grows. Top 400 people have more wealth than bottom 150 million.
You need a bigger bottom.

Recovering Republican

07-07-2011, 06:24 PM

Bottom line, taxes at lowest since the 1950s. Another bottom, in the 1950s businesses kicked in about 25 percent of the budget. It is now down to under 6. Bottom line taxes on the rich have been slashed over and over while their wealth grows and grows. Top 400 people have more wealth than bottom 150 million.
You need a bigger bottom.

I don't disagree with any of those numbers. But those numbers had a lot more to do with unionization and the fact that we were the only country that came out of the second World War with an intact industrial base.

You cite percentages, which is a little misleading. Yes, corporate taxes have gone down, but individual taxes have gone up, because the government spends more. Social Security only used to be a 1% tax. Now it's a 12% tax, and it's still going broke.

I guess the question I would ask, do you think taxation is for paying our obligations, or for redistributing wealth?

Chefguy

07-07-2011, 06:48 PM

I don't disagree with any of those numbers. But those numbers had a lot more to do with unionization and the fact that we were the only country that came out of the second World War with an intact industrial base.

You cite percentages, which is a little misleading. Yes, corporate taxes have gone down, but individual taxes have gone up, because the government spends more. Social Security only used to be a 1% tax. Now it's a 12% tax, and it's still going broke.

I guess the question I would ask, do you think taxation is for paying our obligations, or for redistributing wealth?

Seeing as how corporate welfare and tax breaks for the wealthy have gone up, I know where at least part of the redistribution is going.

pseudotriton ruber ruber

07-07-2011, 07:17 PM

I guess the question I would ask, do you think taxation is for paying our obligations, or for redistributing wealth?

And I guess the question I would ask you, if I gave a shit about your specious self-serving answer, would be "Do you see value in any governmental program that doesn't impact on your own personal life?" Living in a just society that looks out for the interests of the poor and vulnerable and disadvantaged means a lot to me.

DSeid

07-07-2011, 09:28 PM

Perhaps Recovered Republican may want consider Relapsing Republican as a new name? Hey relapses happen and we are here for you!

Anyway - Palin is so last election cycle. Seriously, she had her time as the TP darling and she is now passe. Her drive was to milk her fame for as many dollars as she could with as little work as she could and she didn't too bad of a job of it. If she jumped in now she would be perceived as being Bachmann's spoiler by the TP faithful who are deluded enough to think that anyone of that extreme pole really has a chance to take the nomination, let alone a general Presidential election. The can't turn away from a car crash clicks are Bachmann's now. The difference is that I think Bachmann actually believes in what she says, whereas Palin was more of an opportunist.

As to the asides - Relapsing ... Recovered Republican - taxation is meet our obligations. Do you believe that our obligations include looking out for each other? I do and much of what you may consider redistributing wealth I consider meeting those obligations.

Recovering Republican

07-08-2011, 05:46 AM

Perhaps Recovered Republican may want consider Relapsing Republican as a new name? Hey relapses happen and we are here for you!.

Well, all you guys have really accomplished so far is reminding me why I became a Republican in the first place. Now, I'll admit, I may have lost sight of that in the last few years refuting ridiculous batshit crazy on places like Town Hall where you hear stuff like "Obama was born in Kenya, and he's part of a socialist plot to destroy America!!!!!"

You guys have reminded me why Democrats can't really be trusted.

As to the asides - Relapsing ... Recovered Republican - taxation is meet our obligations. Do you believe that our obligations include looking out for each other? I do and much of what you may consider redistributing wealth I consider meeting those obligations.

Well, sorry, if you are paying people to breed and vote for Democrats, you are kind of defeating that purpose. When working folks have to limit themselves to two kids and welfare folks are having multiple ones by multiple fathers because the government picks up the tab, you are really defeating the purpose, aren't you?

The purpose should be to reinstill a work ethic into those folks. Now I'm not a fan of a lot of our economic system, where I am essentially busting my hump to make the stockholders rich. But I'm not a fan of a system that the government takes from the producers and pays the non-producers.

Has to be a better way.

Recovering Republican

07-08-2011, 05:49 AM

And I guess the question I would ask you, if I gave a shit about your specious self-serving answer, would be "Do you see value in any governmental program that doesn't impact on your own personal life?" Living in a just society that looks out for the interests of the poor and vulnerable and disadvantaged means a lot to me.

As I said before, how is it in their interest to make them dependent.

Let's look at what your system does.

Pays their mother to have them out of wedlock. Remember all those ghetto kids who joined the army, and "Unknown" was the father of all of them. Oh, they had a different last name than their mothers, but they had no idea who their fathers were really.

Puts them in a public school that doesn't bother to teach them to read or any other basic skills.

Tells they deserve money, building on resentments for things that happened to their ancestors.

He suffers from the socialist disease in its worst form, the belief the world owes him a living. - Robert A. Heinlien.

Fear Itself

07-08-2011, 08:04 AM

Well, sorry, if you are paying people to breed and vote for Democrats, you are kind of defeating that purpose. When working folks have to limit themselves to two kids and welfare folks are having multiple ones by multiple fathers because the government picks up the tab, you are really defeating the purpose, aren't you? Oooh, Daddy, tell us the one about the evil Welfare Queen and the Cadillac paid for by taxpayers! Pleeeease???

pseudotriton ruber ruber

07-08-2011, 09:34 AM

As I said before, how is it in their interest to make them dependent.
I appreciate your selfless concern for their interest. Mighty white of you.

pseudotriton ruber ruber

07-08-2011, 09:42 AM

all those ghetto kids ...things that happened to their ancestors.

I did enjoy the way RR's racism is beginning to show. I wrote about "the interests of the poor and vulnerable and disadvantaged" and he comes back at me with the racist crap quoted above. Maybe I'm all worked up about the interests of white folks from your exact racial background, RR
, the ones who are handicapped or elderly or orphaned, ever think of that possiblity? I'm not, I'm including the poor and vulnerable and disadvantaged of all races, but it's fascinating how quickly you jump to your conclusion, all the while explaining that the Tea Party is not racist, and you're not aligned with the Tea Party, and you certainly haven't a racist bone in your body. But the truth will out.

Merijeek

07-08-2011, 09:43 AM

I appreciate your selfless concern for their interest. Mighty white of you.

Look, there's nothing more essential to the guy than government NOT telling people how to live. And if he has to have the gummint tell them how to live to make that happen, well that's just because he doesn't want the gummint to tell people how to live.

What don't you understand, you stupid librul prick?

-Joe

DSeid

07-08-2011, 09:50 AM

... paying people to breed and vote for Democrats, you are kind of defeating that purpose. When working folks have to limit themselves to two kids and welfare folks are having multiple ones by multiple fathers because the government picks up the tab, you are really defeating the purpose, aren't you?

The purpose should be to reinstill a work ethic into those folks...
RR,

Really, with statements like that you fit in just fine with the "socialist plot" folk you allegedly deride.

But rather than take the bait to address every stereotypic Right Wing radio pseudofactoid you throw out there (several in a single breath, very impressive!), let's keep this at the level of principles -

Do you agree, in principle, that we, as a society, have an obligation to look after each other, at least to some degree?

Your response implies, but does not state explicitly, that you do.

If so, then characterizing any attempt to do so as "redistribution of wealth" is counterproductive to any meaningful dialogue.

If you accept that we have such an obligation we can instead have a reasonable discussion regarding the extent of our obligation and whether or not meeting that obligation is also in the long term best interest of those of us who are more high income producers.

Despite your image that food stamps and public housing has caused an epidemic in Black teens having baby after baby, the teen pregnancy rate has actually overall dropped by half since 1990 and for Black teens went from about 85 births/1000 females 15 to 17 years old to 32.

Your general concept seems to be that poor individuals having multiple children is a rational decision, that if mothers knew that additional children would make them more likely to all suffer from malnutrition and/or homelessness, that they would then behave rationally and either not have sex or at least be better at birth control. Of course human nature does not work so rationally. Across the world and across history the best predictors of large family size is poverty, economic insecurity, and female low educational status. It may be counterintuitive but it is true.

If it is in society's best interest (and the best interest of those of us who are higher income producers) to decrease the number of children born into poverty around us, then the most effective approach to do so is to reduce economic insecurity among our most poor and to raise the educational level of our most poor, especially of poor females. In empiric reality attempts to have a "family cap" on benefits by multiple states have not worked (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775139/).

Could we do that job better than we currently do it? Can you find anecdotes of those who abuse the system? Of course we can improve and of course there are those who find ways to game any system. But a discussion of how to improve the execution of meeting our obligation to look after each other is a very different one than one that describes doing so as income redistribution and that evokes false stereotypes.

Rhythmdvl

07-08-2011, 10:10 AM

Assuming Palin runs, how likely is it that she could win?
Because frankly, the idea of that woman running the country scares the hell out of me. I know she's being all non-committal about it right now but lets face it, she's got something up her sleeve. Someone who can't even admit that they're wrong about a simple fact (the Paul Revere and the British thing for example) makes me very nervous. Everyone makes mistakes, but the least she can do is admit the flub and not try to cover it up. And while we're on the subject, why does she draw people to her in the first place? I just don't understand it. Someone please enlighten me because every time I see her I cringe. I'd like to know if my worries are real.

I just thought I'd repeat the OP.

Speculating, I think the relatively tepid response to her bus tour (tepid compared to the coverage it would have received a year ago), the short media attention to the gotcha-ya bus/Alaska/Iowa scheduling, and Bachman's apparent eclipsing of her pigeon hole have her convinced that not running is the smarter economic choice at the moment. However, as she fades from the headlines and sees her income (speaking engagements, endorsement deals, etc.) diminish, she may be tempted to do something to stay 'newsworthy' and bolster her importance.

I think she is a vapid ignoramus of average intelligence, but that doesn't mean she isn't conniving or capable of making some astute speculations. An option she must be considering is that Obama's reelection is (apparently) more likely than not, and the troubles with the economy are global in nature (i.e., despite talking points he is not to blame for everything). But economies generally cycle, and she could be in a better place to campaign in 2017* and take credit for an upturn.

*Shhh! Don't tell her!

Profound Gibberish

07-08-2011, 10:35 AM

Despite your image that food stamps and public housing has caused an epidemic in Black teens having baby after baby, the teen pregnancy rate has actually overall dropped by half since 1990 and for Black teens went from about 85 births/1000 females 15 to 17 years old to 32.

Your general concept seems to be that poor individuals having multiple children is a rational decision, that if mothers knew that additional children would make them more likely to all suffer from malnutrition and/or homelessness, that they would then behave rationally and either not have sex or at least be better at birth control. Of course human nature does not work so rationally. Across the world and across history the best predictors of large family size is poverty, economic insecurity, and female low educational status. It may be counterintuitive but it is true.

If it is in society's best interest (and the best interest of those of us who are higher income producers) to decrease the number of children born into poverty around us, then the most effective approach to do so is to reduce economic insecurity among our most poor and to raise the educational level of our most poor, especially of poor females. In empiric reality attempts to have a "family cap" on benefits by multiple states have not worked (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775139/).

Could we do that job better than we currently do it? Can you find anecdotes of those who abuse the system? Of course we can improve and of course there are those who find ways to game any system. But a discussion of how to improve the execution of meeting our obligation to look after each other is a very different one than one that describes doing so as income redistribution and that evokes false stereotypes.

That is an excellent summary of the issue DSeid .

[Begin Satire] Tragically, it is too much to fit on a bumer sticker so it must be excluded from any thought process. For the sake of our right-wing breathen whose political education is apparently derived through attack radio, please be sure to address complex issues in 10 words or less. Preferably under Five. With sufficient shouting and dripping derision of any answer other than your own. Thank you. [End Satire]

Merijeek

07-08-2011, 11:00 AM

I just thought I'd repeat the OP.

Speculating, I think the relatively tepid response to her bus tour (tepid compared to the coverage it would have received a year ago), the short media attention to the gotcha-ya bus/Alaska/Iowa scheduling, and Bachman's apparent eclipsing of her pigeon hole have her convinced that not running is the smarter economic choice at the moment. However, as she fades from the headlines and sees her income (speaking engagements, endorsement deals, etc.) diminish, she may be tempted to do something to stay 'newsworthy' and bolster her importance.

You're forgetting a core piece of her personality - she's lazy. Really fucking lazy. Her bus trip was to have turned into a spontaneous wave of adulation that lifted her to the White House. Instead, she got a rather tepid response from the same bunch of low-class yahoos that she can get anywhere. She can get that from people who will give her six-figure checks to just show up and blather whatever she has scribbled on her sweaty little paws.

Why bother? It got her no new attention, and it probably got her less money. And it took effort. Eew.

That is an excellent summary of the issue DSeid .

[Begin Satire] Tragically, it is too much to fit on a bumer sticker so it must be excluded from any thought process. For the sake of our right-wing breathen whose political education is apparently derived through attack radio, please be sure to address complex issues in 10 words or less. Preferably under Five. With sufficient shouting and dripping derision of any answer other than your own. Thank you. [End Satire]

Bullets - They cost only pennies

How'd I do?
-Joe

42fish

07-08-2011, 11:07 AM

Well, all you guys have really accomplished so far is reminding me why I became a Republican in the first place.

Hmmm.... Last time you made this comment it was accompanied by your belief that many CEOs make their hiring decisions by asking "Do I personally like the President" rather than "Are additional employees likely to increase corporate profits," so I guessed "Inability to understand economics" for the reason you became a Republican in the first place.

This time, it's accompanied by "evil welfare queen" anecdotes, so I'm going to revise my guess to "Because Republicans were more willing to cater to your desire for simple answers in a complex world."

So, will there be a prize for the first person to figure out your reason correctly?

bup

07-08-2011, 11:21 AM

You're forgetting a core piece of her personality - she's lazy.That is an excellent insight that had not occurred to me. That's the whole ballgame right there. There's no way she can win the presidency. It would take too much prolonged effort.

Chefguy

07-08-2011, 11:21 AM

As I said before, how is it in their interest to make them dependent.

Let's look at what your system does.

Pays their mother to have them out of wedlock. Remember all those ghetto kids who joined the army, and "Unknown" was the father of all of them. Oh, they had a different last name than their mothers, but they had no idea who their fathers were really.

Puts them in a public school that doesn't bother to teach them to read or any other basic skills.

Tells they deserve money, building on resentments for things that happened to their ancestors.

He suffers from the socialist disease in its worst form, the belief the world owes him a living. - Robert A. Heinlien.

Do you feel that it's a requirement to derail every goddamned thread in this forum with this bullshit?

Profound Gibberish

07-08-2011, 12:09 PM

Fear Itself

07-08-2011, 12:47 PM

So, will there be a prize for the first person to figure out your reason correctly?Foodstamps.

Merijeek

07-08-2011, 12:53 PM

Foodstamps.

It's not like he'd be ashamed. You need to remember that when someone like him gets some sort of assistance, it's because he needed a hand up. When it's one of "those people" it's a hand out.

-Joe

RTFirefly

07-08-2011, 01:02 PM

You're forgetting a core piece of her personality - she's lazy. Really fucking lazy. Her bus trip was to have turned into a spontaneous wave of adulation that lifted her to the White House. Instead, she got a rather tepid response from the same bunch of low-class yahoos that she can get anywhere. She can get that from people who will give her six-figure checks to just show up and blather whatever she has scribbled on her sweaty little paws.

Why bother? It got her no new attention, and it probably got her less money. And it took effort. Eew. This.

How'd I do?
-JoeDamned well, I'd say.

I'd just add that it doesn't take that much effort to find people who are competent and experienced at running Presidential primary campaigns, nor is it extremely difficult to heed their advice, at least in broad strokes, if not in every last particular. GWB managed it, after all.

Just think: if she had the (quite limited) self-discipline of George W. Bush, she'd probably be the frontrunner for the GOP nomination right now. Instead, she's rapidly becoming yesterday's news. This is because, as you say, she's really fucking lazy.

Recovering Republican

07-08-2011, 06:12 PM

I did enjoy the way RR's racism is beginning to show. I wrote about "the interests of the poor and vulnerable and disadvantaged" and he comes back at me with the racist crap quoted above. Maybe I'm all worked up about the interests of white folks from your exact racial background, RR
, the ones who are handicapped or elderly or orphaned, ever think of that possiblity? I'm not, I'm including the poor and vulnerable and disadvantaged of all races, but it's fascinating how quickly you jump to your conclusion, all the while explaining that the Tea Party is not racist, and you're not aligned with the Tea Party, and you certainly haven't a racist bone in your body. But the truth will out.

NOw, where do you read "race" into anything I said above.

Oh, that's right. Mention "welfare" or "illegitimacy", those are obviously "racial code words".

I have no problem taking care of the disabled, but if you are able bodied, and you are collecting government assistance for years because 1) you don't want to work and 2) think the world owes you a living, that's part of the problem.

I'd have no problem replacing welfare with workfare. You still get a check, but you show up and you do work. This is what that raging right winger FDR did during the Great Depression with the CCC and WPA. He didn't say, "Here's a bag of money, go have some kids!"

"Racism" is the last refuge of a liberal scoundrel.

Recovering Republican

07-08-2011, 06:23 PM

I appreciate your selfless concern for their interest. Mighty white of you.

I have no concern about their interest at all, guy. Frankly, if you aren't related to me or a friend of mine, I simply do not care if you live or die. And if you're not an American, I care even less than that.

I talk SIMPLY as a matter of policy. As a matter of policy, you have families that have no concept of what a "paycheck" is, because no one has earned one in a couple of generations. They let their kids go hungry and buy the latest hi-tops or cell phones or bling.

When I was in the Guard, we had this one sergeant (eventually discharged for a cocaine habit) who made money buying up food stamps for half their value to people who wanted the cold hard cash to buy other things. Now before you go whining about how this is another of my "anecdotes", the fact is, this sort of thing was probably pretty wide spread, which is why they replaced food stamps with something that looks like a credit card. Some moron in the Clinton Adminstration even wanted to call them "Dignity Cards", which has to be about the most Orwellian thing I've heard.

Now, should we give welfare. Yup, I think we should- conditionally.

You should be required to perform a valuable service to society, reporting to a work station just like everyone else has to. You should stay clean and off drugs. And you should understand this is "CHARITY" not an "ENTITLEMENT".

pseudotriton ruber ruber

07-08-2011, 06:27 PM

NOw, where do you read "race" into anything I said above.

Oh, that's right. Mention "welfare" or "illegitimacy", those are obviously "racial code words".

I have no problem taking care of the disabled, but if you are able bodied, and you are collecting government assistance for years because 1) you don't want to work and 2) think the world owes you a living, that's part of the problem.

I'd have no problem replacing welfare with workfare. You still get a check, but you show up and you do work. This is what that raging right winger FDR did during the Great Depression with the CCC and WPA. He didn't say, "Here's a bag of money, go have some kids!"

"Racism" is the last refuge of a liberal scoundrel.

Do you really think that if you don't quote the words of yours I quoted ("all those ghetto kids ...things that happened to their ancestors") and instead quote other words you didn't say ("welfare" and "illegitmacy"), no one's going to notice what a racist thug you are? Who, if not black people, have any sort of grievance about how their ancestors were treated? Which groups currently live in the ghetto could you possibly be characterizing? You're trying to deflect the charge of racism here when it's imprinted on your skin and your brain. It won't come off by your pathetic attempts to distract people, guy. Face it, you're a thug.

Rhythmdvl

07-08-2011, 06:31 PM

NOw, where do you read "race" into anything I said above.

Oh, that's right. Mention "welfare" or "illegitimacy", those are obviously "racial code words".
Or how about:
Remember all those ghetto kids who joined the army, and "Unknown" was the father of all of them. Oh, they had a different last name than their mothers, but they had no idea who their fathers were really.

...

Tells they deserve money, building on resentments for things that happened to their ancestors.

Obvious games are obvious.

Recovering Republican

07-08-2011, 06:42 PM

Do you really think that if you don't quote the words of yours I quoted ("all those ghetto kids ...things that happened to their ancestors") and instead quote other words you didn't say ("welfare" and "illegitmacy"), no one's going to notice what a racist thug you are? Who, if not black people, have any sort of grievance about how their ancestors were treated? Which groups currently live in the ghetto could you possibly be characterizing? You're trying to deflect the charge of racism here when it's imprinted on your skin and your brain. It won't come off by your pathetic attempts to distract people, guy. Face it, you're a thug.

Oh, I proudly admit to being a thug. Just not a racist.

But are you saying there aren't any poor white people in ghettos? Or that bad things didn't happen to their ancestors? Really? Is this what you are saying?

Nobody has a greivence based on what happened to their ancestors. I don't have a greivence because of what happened to my Cherokee ancestors on the Trial of Tears or to my German ancestors for the prejudice they suffered between the world wars. Those were their problems, not mine.

Fact is, Democrats are creating a permanent dependent class. Part of it is racial. (For instance, the African American illegitimacy rate was 20% in the 1950's, but 70% today!)

You guys need people to be dependent on government. If everyone provided for themselves, except for those truly meriting charity, there would be no need for a government that spends 4 trillion a year.

Recovering Republican

07-08-2011, 06:48 PM

Or how about:

Obvious games are obvious.

No, it's that you want to see 'racism" as an excuse for everything.

Are there people who are racist out there? Yup. Probably.

Is that a valid excuse to give up and let the government take care of you for life? Nope.

Let's take "Unkown", champion stud of America. Lots of white folks who had "unknown" as a father, too.

Why?

Because if you list a father, the government insists that you go after him for child support. But if you list "unknown", and don't get married, the government gives you a check.

Now besides the fact that it's seriously effed up when a woman doesn't know which man actually fathered her child, we have to assume that probably doesn't happen that often. But the government encouraged that kind of thing, which is why the illegitimacy rate skyrocketed after the "Great Society", despite the advent of birth control and legal abortion.

It goes back to my point.

Stop calling them "Entitlements" and call them what they are, Charity.

pseudotriton ruber ruber

07-08-2011, 06:56 PM

the African American illegitimacy rate was 20% in the 1950's, but 70% today.
You know, normally, I would demand to see a cite for figures like these, but with your impeccable reputation for giving indisputably factual statistics, I'll let this slide this time.

Recovering Republican

07-08-2011, 07:00 PM

You know, normally, I would demand to see a cite for figures like these, but with your impeccable reputation for giving indisputably factual statistics, I'll let this slide this time.

One more time.

I don't so cites. Didn't do them for the wingnuts on Town Hall and won't do them for the Moonbats on Straight Dope.

You know why I don't do them? Not because I can't find them. I always can. That's really my job in the real world. Finding things. I can always find what I'm looking for.

I don't do it because WHEN I DO, you guys* do one of two things.

1) Pretend you didn't see them.

2) Claim it wasn't from a valid source.

*- and again, I don't limit it to the left. The right does the same thing.

pseudotriton ruber ruber

07-08-2011, 07:08 PM

I said I'd let it slide. Your posts speak for themselves, and your integrity and bold, self-searching honesty do too.

DSeid

07-08-2011, 09:03 PM

I did ask a direct question up there in post #151 RR. That bolded part. Maybe you didn't see it. Care to answer and respond?

If you want source for my numbers I do do cites btw, and handle objections about their validity quite easily. It's not too hard to do. Really. So long as one just doesn't make shit up. When one refuses to as a matter of course then others do not know when the factoid happens to be correct (which that 70% number is) and when the factoid is completely fictional (as much of what you have posted is). Interesting trends in unmarried birth rates (http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/docs/nonmaritalbirthrates.pdf): birth rates among unmarried Hispanic and black women have declined steadily since 1995, while rates among unmarried white women rose before stabilizing in the mid-1990s. In 1999, 40% of non-marital births were to non-Hispanic white women, 32% to black women, 25% to Hispanic women, and 4% were to women of other races.Yes, Black unmarried birth rate has been steadly declining while White unmarried birth rate has doubled since the 70's. Mind you the rate among Blacks is still high, about 70%, but that is substantially down over the last 20 years, when it was about 83%. In fact the birthrate among Black women has been decreasing steadily (http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/01/us/birth-rate-falls-to-40-year-low-among-unwed-black-women.html), both married and unmarried, for many decades. The reason for the steady birth rate decrease in Blacks? Partly because the Black teen pregnancy rate has decreased by so much despite the nefarious Democratic plan to use a Welfare state to get them to breed more in order to produce more Democratic voters. More seriously for the very reason I put forth in the post you pretended was not there - less economic insecurity, and higher educational attainment especially for Black women formerly of poverty. The percent of Black women who go on to college after High School has doubled, to near 70%, since the late 60's. I tell ya's, we are doing a piss poor job in our plan to create a permanent underclass.

rogerbox

07-08-2011, 10:22 PM

I talk SIMPLY as a matter of policy. As a matter of policy, you have families that have no concept of what a "paycheck" is, because no one has earned one in a couple of generations.

Cite?

DSeid

07-08-2011, 11:48 PM

Well, he don't do cites.

Again I do though, and the reality is (http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf) that few living in poverty don't work at all and those have not had a paycheck for generations are common only as fictional characters on Right Wing talk radio shows. The poor have been working. When they can.

Of course many of the poor right now, many of those getting assistance at this point in time, had been employed consistently for years. They, previously of the middle class, are the new poor.

Recovering Republican

07-09-2011, 04:13 AM

Dseid, I ignored your bit of sophistry because the birth rate has declined among ALL women, not just minorities. We could also talk about the predetory nature of Planned Parenthood in poor communities, but I usually try to avoid the sinkhole of abortion discussions.

But you are going to claim that the illegitimacy rate has declined from 83% to 70% in the AA community, like that's "progress" or something.

So instead, I will just leave you with this pearl of wisdom...

"Today, we are taking an historic chance to make welfare what it was meant to be, a second chance, not a way of life,"

You know who said that? Bill Clinton.

Even he knew it was a problem.

DSeid

07-09-2011, 07:18 AM

Recovering Republican

07-09-2011, 07:30 AM

You don't do cites; I don't do sophistry.

You ignored the fact that we were talking about the unmarried birthrate, your claim of how welfare has caused it to increase dramatically and the cited and documented fact that the unmarried birth rate among White women has increased during the same that the Black unmarried birth rate has decreased.

You also still have not attempted to answer my very basic question.

Thanks for playing, but sorry you don't even get a consolation prize on your way out.

Because it's a silly question.

SOmething going from 83% to 70% (and again, I didn't check your numbers, I'm taking it on faith) is not really an improvement. it is still TOTALLY unacceptable, and the government deserves a large part of the blame for this.

And I take no joy in the fact white women are catching up in this awful statistic.

Hey, do you know what is not being talked about all that much in the Casey Anthony case? That she was a "single mother".

gonzomax

07-09-2011, 11:19 AM

Because it's a silly question.

SOmething going from 83% to 70% (and again, I didn't check your numbers, I'm taking it on faith) is not really an improvement. it is still TOTALLY unacceptable, and the government deserves a large part of the blame for this.

And I take no joy in the fact white women are catching up in this awful statistic.

Hey, do you know what is not being talked about all that much in the Casey Anthony case? That she was a "single mother".

And white.

Recovering Republican

07-09-2011, 12:16 PM

You are the one with the race obsession, guy. NOt me.

You are the ones who think that government programs can replace fathers. Who want to take the words "Mother" and "Father" off birth certificates because they are judgmental.

pseudotriton ruber ruber

07-09-2011, 12:33 PM

Recovering Republican

07-09-2011, 12:46 PM

No, you're the one who started in with this crap about "kids in the ghetto" and people complaining about injustices visited on their ancestors, and now you're running away from it as if it were a nun with a ruler in her hand. You tipped your hand as a closet racist, and now you're trying to cover up, but it won't fly. You have to live with your racist tone, your racist beliefs, your racist words, and your racist self. I'm going to remind you when you try to run away like a scared child, because that's what you are.

Oh, I forgot--guy.

I used to have to drive through the west side of Chicago every day to get to work, or as I call it, "The city that the Great Society Built".

A few more years, the rest of the country is going to look like that.

I get bored with your race obsession on the left because it becomes the dog that eats everyone's homework.

Why O.J. kill his wife? Racism

Why did they start a riot in LA? Racism.

Why is Obama a horrid president? Racism.

looking on the brighter side, When he GETS voted out on a rail next year, you can spend years blaming racism for that. Just trying to find the brighter side for you, guy.

Pashnish Ewing

07-09-2011, 06:10 PM

We could also talk about the predetory nature of Planned Parenthood in poor communities, but I usually try to avoid the sinkhole of abortion discussions.What a shame. I'm sure we're all dying to hear you state your un-cited anecdotes as gen-u-ine proof of this 'phenomenon'.

PandaBear77

07-10-2011, 10:38 AM

Assuming Palin runs, how likely is it that she could win?

I haven't read the rest of the thread but since the OP asked ... I think she has 0% chance of winning against Obama, and I say that as someone who will throw a bigass party if Obama loses the next election. There is absolutely no way she'll beat him and I hope to God she doesn't get the nomination.

Ca3799

07-10-2011, 10:53 AM

Recovering Republican

07-10-2011, 10:57 AM

How do you feel about Briston Palin receiving 'welfare' for her son?

1) I wasn't aware she did.

2) Pretty unacceptable, given that she's getting paid to speak about "abstinence" and appear on reality TV.

3) We know who the father is, he's been making money in his 15 minutes of fame, they should also go after him.

4) The whole tawdry episode makes me long for the days of shotgun weddings.

Bryan Ekers

07-10-2011, 12:36 PM

So, about Palin... I always figured the other Republican hopefuls, themselves ambitious and energetic, would rip her to shreds during the long primary process.

Typo Knig

07-10-2011, 01:09 PM

So, about Palin... I always figured the other Republican hopefuls, themselves ambitious and energetic, would rip her to shreds during the long primary process.

I just saw on Google news that Pawlenty is tearing into fellow-Minnestotan Bachmann. The inward-facing firing squad begins.

Rhythmdvl

07-10-2011, 01:20 PM

I just saw on Google news that Pawlenty is tearing into fellow-Minnestotan Bachmann. The inward-facing firing squad begins.

If that was the same link I saw, it sounds like the firing squad is armed with marshmallows. Not even stale marshmallows, but the freshest, softest mini-marshmallows possible.

"Well, I like Congresswoman Bachmann. I've campaigned for her. I respect her, but her record of accomplishment in Congress is non-existent. It's non-existent," Pawlenty told NBC's "Meet the Press."It is a shot, but not the sort of thing that would tear into a snot-soaked tissue.

Maybe later?

ETA: Wait, this is the Palin thread, not the Bachman thead. We should stick to the topic, and discuss how awful public schools are and cast vague and barely-denialable insults at black people.

Chimera

07-10-2011, 01:26 PM

Tim Pawlenty has NO SHOT at anything here. He's an opportunistic chameleon who wouldn't hold a single position if there wasn't money to be chased in having it.

Rhythmdvl

07-10-2011, 01:52 PM

Tim Pawlenty has NO SHOT at anything here. He's an opportunistic chameleon who wouldn't hold a single position if there wasn't money to be chased in having it.

At least we're back to talking about Palin. Or rather, the Palin Approach to Politics.

Recovering Republican

07-10-2011, 02:05 PM

So, about Palin... I always figured the other Republican hopefuls, themselves ambitious and energetic, would rip her to shreds during the long primary process.

Always risky to do that, because you alienate her supporters, who you need to be your supporters after the process is over.

Huckabee and Romney supporters are STILL angry with each other over the mud-fight they had in 2008.

tnetennba

07-10-2011, 02:14 PM

It doesn't matter if anyone attacks Palin. She will say she's being attacked, and her sheeplike followers will believe her. Remember, all you have to do to this woman to earn her eternal hate and distrust is ask her what she's reading.

Bryan Ekers

07-10-2011, 03:11 PM

Always risky to do that, because you alienate her supporters, who you need to be your supporters after the process is over.

Well, if the devout Palin-supporters sit out the 2012 election (because I assume they're not going to vote for Obama), is it really enough to matter?

Merijeek

07-10-2011, 03:19 PM

It is a shot, but not the sort of thing that would tear into a snot-soaked tissue.

"And if you want to see what I've accomplished, why, Minnesota has a brand new bridge over the Mississippi!"

-Joe

Recovering Republican

07-10-2011, 04:12 PM

Well, if the devout Palin-supporters sit out the 2012 election (because I assume they're not going to vote for Obama), is it really enough to matter?

Maybe, but unlikely.

I think, first and foremost, that it's unlikely Palin will get in to it. She simply isn't doing what Perry is doing right now, lining up support. So really, this whole discussion is academic.

But these guys do want Palin to show up at their rallys and work up the crowd.

Chronos

07-10-2011, 04:15 PM

You don't need to attack Palin to ensure she doesn't get the nomination; you just need to replace her. Haven't most of her supporters moved over to Bachman?

Chimera

07-10-2011, 04:56 PM

"And if you want to see what I've accomplished, why, Minnesota has a brand new bridge over the Mississippi!"

<snerk>

Yeah, about that. No one can claim credit for it. It was going to happen regardless of who was in office, and it was going to happen FAST. A major bridge over an iconic American river, in the middle of a major city, on a Federal Interstate, and it goes down? It is going to rebuilt as quickly as possible even if Hatey McFuckthisland was in office.

Chimera

07-10-2011, 04:58 PM

Honestly, I think it is pretty clear that Palin isn't going to run. But I would bet money that in the days between the Republican nomination being sewn up and the party convention, she is going to be all over the place trying to get in her name as a possible VP nominee.

Recovering Republican

07-10-2011, 05:00 PM

Oldeb

07-10-2011, 05:21 PM

I know Palin thinks that's what the VP does, but that doesn't mean she's correct. You don't have to believe her; you could instead look at what the last 47 have actually done.

But as to why she wants it that's obvious. It's a prestigious position with minimal required duties. But even more important to her it keeps her name in the paper and promises that she'll be talked about in the next presidential election regardless of how her term as VP goes. It'll also raise her speaking fees later on. Former Vice President earns you a lot more cash than Governor who quit part way through their term.

Merijeek

07-10-2011, 05:22 PM

But as to why she wants it that's obvious. It's a prestigious position with minimal required duties. But even more important to her it keeps her name in the paper and promises that she'll be talked about in the next presidential election regardless of how her term as VP goes. It'll also raise her speaking fees later on. Former Vice President earns you a lot more cash than Governor who quit part way through their term.

MOST half-term governors. I suspect that Palin is already pulling down more than the vast majority of ex-veeps. I doubt most governors can compete with her on income - ignoring the already incredibly wealthy like Romney and the like.

-Joe

Bryan Ekers

07-10-2011, 05:39 PM

I'd guess Palin's earning potential as a speaker will be proportional to her gilfiness, and will diminish as it does.

Oldeb

07-10-2011, 06:35 PM

MOST half-term governors. I suspect that Palin is already pulling down more than the vast majority of ex-veeps. I doubt most governors can compete with her on income - ignoring the already incredibly wealthy like Romney and the like.

She makes less per event than Gore does. But I'm willing to place him as an exception. Gore's speaking fee is currently higher than W. Bush's. ($175k to $150k) She's at the same level as Cheney. ($75k-$100k) I have no idea what Quayle is getting. But yes, I agree that she's well ahead of any governor, full term or not.

I think that what she has now isn't sustainable and she knows it. Eventually she'll have to show some accomplishment to keeping getting high paid speaking engagements. A VP slot would keep her going until she dies.

And I don't think it's really about the money as anything more than a measure of how well everyone loves her anymore. She certainly quit in Alaska to chase after the money, but she's got more than enough now. Now it's just a means of telling how popular she is. And that is what she really cares about more than anything. She'll certainly keep chasing money deals, but not because she needs it or even has any plans to spend it.

Chronos

07-10-2011, 07:13 PM

Besides, her trying for the VP slot would seem anticlimactic. That's what she ran for (and lost) before, and now she's not even setting her sights any higher?

gonzomax

07-10-2011, 10:41 PM

Palin said today that "the field is not set'. That would suggest that she is going to throw he bra into the ring.

Bryan Ekers

07-10-2011, 10:57 PM

She makes less per event than Gore does. But I'm willing to place him as an exception. Gore's speaking fee is currently higher than W. Bush's. ($175k to $150k) She's at the same level as Cheney. ($75k-$100k) I have no idea what Quayle is getting. But yes, I agree that she's well ahead of any governor, full term or not.

I dunno, let's see how much money Schwarzenegger can make at Comic-Con.

Fear Itself

07-11-2011, 12:20 AM

Palin said today that "the field is not set'. That would suggest that she is going to throw he bra into the ring.I'd pay a dollar for that.

Boyo Jim

07-11-2011, 06:27 AM

Palin said today that "the field is not set'. That would suggest that she is going to throw he bra into the ring.

Her chances for the nomination are already sagging pitifully. No need to make it worse.

Rhythmdvl

07-11-2011, 03:04 PM

Chronos

07-11-2011, 04:32 PM

Unless that was a subtle pun that went right over my head, you probably meant "discreet", there, not "discrete". I used to make that mistake all the time, too.

Rhythmdvl

07-11-2011, 04:51 PM

What are you talking about? I didn't make a mistake. That is the right form to have used.

(Please give me two minutes to make the appropriate changes to Wikipedia.)

That Don Guy

07-22-2011, 04:33 PM

The question I have is, if she runs, what are her chances of winning the Republican nomination?

If, somehow, she gets nominated, I don't see her winning - she strikes me as the kind of person moderate Republicans would turn away from in droves (shades of Walter Mondale in 1984, but in the other direction?).

DigitalC

07-22-2011, 05:02 PM

The people who would have voted for her like Bachmann better at this point, i don't see how she can win them back.

Knorf

07-22-2011, 05:44 PM

Her hagiogaphic movie continues to get spectacular (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/771245638/) reviews.

I am monitoring said reviews with interest.

gonzomax

07-22-2011, 09:50 PM

Chances of Palin winning? Well RERCOVERING against the rest of the voters in America. No chance at all.

Rhythmdvl

07-23-2011, 11:01 AM

Chances of Palin winning? Well RERCOVERING against the rest of the voters in America. No chance at all.

Palin: Inspiring gibberish since 2008.

Chronos

07-23-2011, 01:15 PM

It's not gibberish. He's saying that Recovering Republican would vote for her, but that everyone else in the country would vote against her. The statement may not be true, but it's sensical.

Rhythmdvl

07-23-2011, 02:50 PM

Okay, this is the second time in the same thread that you tried to correctify me with patently false information. As soon as I'm done editing Wiki for the SECOND time, you will see that Gonzo's statement was fliberty gibberish.

Actually, wait. I don't even have to do that. Since you found Gonzo's statement coherent, you therefore found mine to be false. Because mine is false, yet presented as a true statement, it is ipso liquid soapo gibberish; therefore, as in the Vice Presidential/role in the Senate statement and a host of others, the statement was withing the scope of factuality, and therefore indisputably correct.

So there.

gonzomax

07-24-2011, 07:40 PM

Recovering Republican

07-25-2011, 06:03 AM

RECOVERING represents a slice of 20 percent die hard Repubs who would vote for Nixon or Bush 2 today. They exist . There are actually several on this board. They defend Palin. They defend Bachmann. They lose credibility, but they really do believe, with a religious fervor that overcomes logic, facts and sense. They are totally unreachable and after saying stupid shit over and over, go to sleep with a satisfied feeling that they educated many people that day.

Wow, guy, I haven't posted in this thread since the 10th, not sure why you are going all nutty about me here.

I thought I've made myself pretty clear. I'm not religious. I'm actually someone bothered by the strength the religious right has.

But, yeah, you might have a point.

Nixon's rotting corpse would probably do a better job than Obama.

Bush-2 would do a better job than Obama.

Seriously, the real problem is no matter how bad "The One" screws things up, you are among the 20% who gets up here and defends him.

We are at the highest consistant unemployment since the Great Depression, we are tettering on the brink of default, and companies are abandoning this country like rats off a sinking ship. Gasoline is at record highs. And you refuse to hold the "Worst Affirmative Action Hire Ever" accountable for any of it. No, no, it's always someone else's fault.

In 2008, you ran on "Hope". Well, in 2012, there is no Hope left, so all you have is Fear. Obama is a screw-up, "Ooooh, Palin is stupid" "Oooooh, Bachmann is scary". You can't really defend your guy, so you have to attack anyone who might oppose him, even if they aren't running.

Little Nemo

07-25-2011, 11:56 AM

The problem, RR, is that you don't understand the reasons why people voted for Obama in 2008. So there's a good chance you're misunderstanding the reasons why people will vote in 2012.

Recovering Republican

07-31-2011, 05:33 AM

The problem, RR, is that you don't understand the reasons why people voted for Obama in 2008. So there's a good chance you're misunderstanding the reasons why people will vote in 2012.

Oh, I understand EXACTLY why morons voted for this idiot in 2008.

Liberal White Guilt
Anger over the War
The economy was going south.

So let's ignore the fact this guy has the least amount of experience of anyone who has run for the office, ever. And even though Republicans knuckled under and nominated a moderate RINO, like you always begged them to, you weren't going to vote for that guy despite his decades of experience. No, no... Hopey-Change, Hopey Change.

Now we are in EXPANDED wars, the economy is completely in the shithole, and frankly, I guess you can still play on the liberal white guilt thing, but that ain't gonna get you over the top the next time.

Fear Itself

07-31-2011, 07:08 AM

I guess you can still play on the liberal white guilt thing, but that ain't gonna get you over the top the next time.Disgust with conservative idiocy will serve just as well.

Recovering Republican

07-31-2011, 08:06 AM

Disgust with conservative idiocy will serve just as well.

YOu keep telling yourself that, man.

Most people are conservatives. They might vote as liberals, but they live as conservatives.

Most people do not hand over their money to the lazy and irresponisble willingly, but liberals are happy when the government does it.

Do you think Public Education would be as mediocre as it is if people had to write out a check themselves for little Johnny to go there? Do you think they'd write out a check if L'il Johnny can't read, but he comes home with a box of condoms? Of course not. They'd hit the roof.

Conservatives call themselves what they are. You call a liberal a liberal, he'll run like a scalded cat.

And with 9.2% unemployment, >1% GDP growth, and "The One" at a popularity rating of less than 40%, you simply won't be able to guilt them much longer or blame the other guy.

Fear Itself

07-31-2011, 08:36 AM

I hope you repeat that rant at every opportunity, to whomever will listen. Nothing succeeds better than a bad example that won't go way.

Recovering Republican

07-31-2011, 08:42 AM

I hope you repeat that rant at every opportunity, to whomever will listen. Nothing succeeds better than a bad example that won't go way.

Well, I'll admit, on the "Liberal Support Group" website, it probably doesn't go far. You guy so far into denial it isn't even funny.

you do realize your guy has failed, right. Failed in every possible aspect.

When he's voted out in 2012, still throwing tantrums about not being able to raise taxes, it'll be like putting down Old Yeller!

Fear Itself

07-31-2011, 08:47 AM

Oooh, I like it! Put it on a poster, just like that, and march around the White House. And shake your fist!

Comedy gold, Jerry!!

gonzomax

08-08-2011, 11:08 AM

Even Fox is bailing on Palin. Now they admit they have gone easy on her in the past. For Fox, that is a huge admission. Her fans are getting smaller and smaller.

Rhythmdvl

08-08-2011, 11:09 AM

Even Fox is bailing on Palin. Now they admit they have gone easy on her in the past. For Fox, that is a huge admission. Her fans are getting smaller and smaller.

Where? Link?

Really Not All That Bright

08-08-2011, 11:18 AM

So let's ignore the fact this guy has the least amount of experience of anyone who has run for the office, ever.
Sure you aren't oversatating things a bit there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington)?

Shodan

08-09-2011, 09:23 AM

Sure you aren't oversatating things a bit there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington)?
What military experience did Obama have? As opposed to, say, winning the Revolutionary War.

As I recall, Obama served about a half term in the Senate. As opposed to presiding over the Constitutional Convention that wrote the Constitution.

You'll have to excuse me if I laugh myself sick at the prospect of comparing Obama with Geo. Washington.

Regards,
Shodan

Frank

08-09-2011, 09:53 AM

You'll have to excuse me if I laugh myself sick at the prospect of comparing Obama with Geo. Washington.

I agree. Washington had been around the block once or twice before he became President.

A more apt comparison might be to Lincoln. Both lawyers, they each served eight years in the state legislature, and Obama beats Lincoln at the federal level, four years to two. And of course, neither were universally loved.

Regardless, the statement of RR's that was being responded to was just another one of his factually inaccurate "asides".

pseudotriton ruber ruber

08-09-2011, 10:02 AM

Can we get back to the topic of Palin running?

That's a great reality TV show: "Palin Running."

Next Season: 'Palin Running: In High Heels." I'd tune in.

The season's climax: "Palin Running: In High Heels and NO BRA."

After that, she strips off various bits of clothing and goes into a random rant about whatever political nonsense pops into her popcorn-filled brainpan, and starts running again.

Seriously--she gets everything she wants, a load of money, attention, rightards justifying all the tastelessness by citing the high ratings, plus she doesn't really have to work. And at the end of her run, she announces:

The full-length movie: Palin Runs--Naked in High Heels.

And then she screws everyone by appearing fully clothed for two hours, yakking about how she decided not to appear nude to save the voters in Alaska money, or some such shit, but implies that she may go nude in a future movie.

Shodan

08-09-2011, 11:33 AM

A more apt comparison might be to Lincoln. Both lawyers, they each served eight years in the state legislature, and Obama beats Lincoln at the federal level, four years to two. Still not very apt - Lincoln had at least a few months experience in the military, and in a leadership role at least. And of course, Lincoln had one hell of a lot more experience in the private practice of law. Private business in general, in fact - he was the only President to hold a patent.

Regards,
Shodan

zut

08-09-2011, 11:53 AM

Even Fox is bailing on Palin. Now they admit they have gone easy on her in the past. For Fox, that is a huge admission. Her fans are getting smaller and smaller.

Where? Link?

Here's one: Fox News' Greg Gutfeld and Bob Beckel say they take it easy on Sarah Palin, then say it's a joke.

Fuzzy Dunlop

08-09-2011, 12:23 PM

Still not very apt - Lincoln had at least a few months experience in the military, and in a leadership role at least. And of course, Lincoln had one hell of a lot more experience in the private practice of law. Private business in general, in fact - he was the only President to hold a patent.

Well it's an extraordinarily apt comparison if you limit it to experiences that actually matter with respect to being president. Why would anybody care that he had a patent? Maybe there's a good reason he's the only one. The comparison also breaks down when you consider that Obama has in fact never worn a chin strap beard and was born OVER 150 years after Lincoln. But in terms of meaningful factors, pretty damn apt comparison.

Shodan

08-09-2011, 01:24 PM

Well it's an extraordinarily apt comparison if you limit it to experiences that actually matter with respect to being president. If you don't consider military experience. leadership/managerial experience, or private business experience, as things that matter to being President, well, that explains a lot of the support for Obama hereabouts.

It's just mildly entertaining to watch the flip-flops. Clinton runs against Dole or Bush Sr., and military experience is meaningless. Kerry gets the nom, and suddenly it's vital. Now it's Obama in the White House, and all of a sudden he is better qualified than Washington.

Regards,
Shodan

pseudotriton ruber ruber

08-09-2011, 02:12 PM

It's just mildly entertaining to watch the flip-flops. Clinton runs against Dole or Bush Sr., and military experience is meaningless. Kerry gets the nom, and suddenly it's vital. Now it's Obama in the White House, and all of a sudden he is better qualified than Washington.

Certainly is-- Clinton runs against Dole or Bush Sr., and military experience is everything. Kerry gets the nom, and suddenly it counts as a negative--he's not a war hero, he's a traitor, is what he is!!!. Now it's Obama in the White House, and all of a sudden he needs experience in a hot war to run a government again. Why? So you can besmirch his service record again?

RTFirefly

08-13-2011, 08:46 PM

The question I have is, if she runs, what are her chances of winning the Republican nomination?Infinitesimal.

Even by the standards of today's GOP, she's proven herself to be a one-woman clown show. Her fans have other places to go (Bachmann, Perry), and will for the most part go there, to the extent that they haven't already.

Crane

08-13-2011, 09:47 PM

By today's GOP standards, clowns are in!

When Palin announces she will absorb all of the available oxygen. The current Republican wannabees have exhausted their audience. They've all been seen and heard. They're all overexposed and boring. A real snoozathon!

Palin will enter at the last minute and draw all the crowds and all of the media attention. She'll be the new clown act on the midway.

Crane

gonzomax

08-13-2011, 09:56 PM

She can not win the nomination but she can steal the spotlight. She never has enough of that. she is still just after money. There can not be more than 100 people who are dumb enough to vote for her.

RTFirefly

08-14-2011, 01:49 PM

By today's GOP standards, clowns are in!Tru dat!

When Palin announces she will absorb all of the available oxygen. The current Republican wannabees have exhausted their audience. They've all been seen and heard. They're all overexposed and boring. A real snoozathon!

Palin will enter at the last minute and draw all the crowds and all of the media attention. She'll be the new clown act on the midway. Nah, she's already become more like the Spinal Tap farewell tour. Especially because, contra your comments, there are a lot of Republicans who are quite excited about Bachmann and/or Perry. They're taking her oxygen, rather than the other way around.