And you’re seriously equating those two decisions, Balthisar? Translating your “told him to” to the more reasonable “recommended,” you’re seriously equating a random vote for someone because they’re physically attractive to following the recommendation of an organization whose entire purpose is to promote the improvement of working conditions and pay for its members?
Yeah. :rolleyes:
Hey, Sarah: I double DOG dare ya!
What is everyone’s contingency plan for if she wins? Let’s take worst case scenario: running-mate of Glenn Beck.
Would you actually evacuate the country? Anywhere I could imagine running to would still feel the repercussions. Not to mention the stigma of being an American. I think I’d move into a shack and isolate myself from politics as much as possible.
When you get involved in politics, all you see is followers. You give a speech and the audience is all backers. Every where you go people wave and say how much they love you. The candidate begins to believe it. Sarah has money and has ways to make it for a long time. She now wants power. While money and power are closely related, once you get elected, you can do what you want at least for a while.
For Tea Baggers, Sarah can do no wrong. That base is safe and can be counted on to vote. With all the money in back of her, she is being cleaned up and taught what to say. By picking her venues and controlling who asks her questions, she can create the illusion of being on top of everything. Americans will buy it. I think she is a lock . Big money is not backing her because they feel like wasting money. They know she can win.
Ru Paul is running as a Republican? I did NOT see that!
I think this will be the most likely scenario. After the Republicans laugh her out of the nomination and choose someone else somewhere down the line, she won’t give up and will run by other means: independent, write-in, or form her own party (let’s call it the Tea Party). That makes the race a bit more interesting, as it did in Alaska’s senate race.
I also find it quite telling, speaking of Alaska’s senate race, that in the one state in the union that is most likely to support Palin, the Palin-backed candidate lost (apparently) to a write-in.
Nuh-uh. No way. She isn’t nearly that smart. I’m convinced that she thinks that everyone likes her and everyone is listening to her and everyone wants her to run for President, none of that VP stuff. Because that’s what her supporters are telling her to do. And she only listens to her supporters. The recent news story where it was revealed that comments detrimental to Palin were immediately scrubbed from her Facebook page* confirms this for me. Her handlers don’t want her to hear anything other than what she thinks.
*And don’t ask me for a [cite], I came across it some time, and I didn’t save the URL. I’m surprised actually that a group as erudite as the SDMB has “cite?” as a meme, I would think we of all people would know to look it up rather than ask.
Hasn’t it been proven she’s insane already? I’m far from being a Republican, but I would easily place Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly together as being smarter than Palin. She will run, and it will be for President, and she will not give up (my bet is on forming a Tea Party, but a few scenarios are possible) for all the reasons cited above.
I’m willing to put sums of money on that.
… wait … that doesn’t mean what I think it means.
What I mean is that each of them individually are far smarter than Palin.
I’ve owned screwdrivers that were smarter than Palin; I fear her lack of smart don’t mean nothin’.
Now she claims that Michelle Obama’s outlook on life is fucked up because she listened to too many anti-white person rants by her ex minister----how many of her ‘base’ will listen and believe?
I think bad thoughts for her every day; I hope one of my voodoo hexes works.
Imagine my surprise.
Regards,
Shodan
Uh, :rolleyes: yourself. There’s a difference between “recommended” and “told him too.” Votes are private and all, but there’s a huge difference between a union (the Teamsters in this case) saying, “We hope you support this candidate because of his pro-labor policies,” and “You’ll vote for this guy if you know what’s good for you.”
Checks and balances. There’s a limit to how badly anyone, even a President, can screw up the country in a few years.
Although it’s not limitless. We’d be better off having at least another four years to recover from the Bush presidency before starting another downhill slide.
How does telling the truth constitute bashing? And why are you surprised? And why do you see fit to inform me of your alleged surprise? Are you unable to rise to her defense and prove by irrefutable logic that she can, will, and must prevail if she and Obama face off in the next presidential election? Why have you not pointed out to other posters who have engaged in Palin bashing that the OP requested no bashing? Why have you not at least expressed an opinion as requested by the OP? Do you not have an opinion? If you do not, then we have witnessed a first here on the SDMB. In short, take your surprise and your condescension and donate them to your favorite charity.
I think Shodan has a valid point. If you had posted that a lot of people think Palin is too dumb to be President, that would have been a legitimate argument about her chances of getting elected. But posting that you’ve got screwdrivers smarter than her is a bash. And being as you’re the one who wrote the OP and requested no bashs, Shodan can legitimately call hypocrisy on you.
And I can return the compliment.
Regards and-----
If by “can” she means that there’s a non-zero possibility she could win the election, then she’s probably right. I think there’s also a non-zero possibility that the Mayans are right, and we won’t suffer long if she’s elected, too, though.
FWIW, my comment wasn’t foisting any claims of unintelligence on Palin, it was more saying that Limbaugh et. al. are actually quite smart, I believe that they are definitely pandering and know what to say to get ratings - I’m not even 100% convinced they believe everything they say. Palin on the other hand …
There’s also a non-zero possibility that the Mayans foretold her election in 2012…
And your father told you that that’s what the union told him? “You vote for this guy if you know what’s good for you?” How was the union supposed to be able to know for whom your dad voted in order to enforce this threat? Why did your dad belong to a union that was threatening him? Why would he believe the threat enough to vote the way he was directed to? This was the nineties, a period of economic boom and significantly weaker unions than in the first half of the twentieth century. If your dad believed the unions to be that corrupt, there were plenty of non-union jobs available; why would he belong to one?
I don’t find your version of these events very plausible. If we were in the 1930s, yeah, maybe, but the 90s? With a dozen reporters on every street corner just dying to do an expose on someone, anyone?
We only ever see unions telling employees how to vote. Nossir, there’s never been an example of company telling its employees how to vote.
Step-father, and he’s not that bright. Unions attract not-very-bright people. And as I did say above, the union has no idea who you really vote for.
Are you kidding? This still goes on today. I supervised UAW workers for a few years. There’s the official union position and pamphlets, and the legal “we think you should vote this way for the following reasons,” and then there are the actual union thugs on the floor that pressure the individual members.
Finally, I was officially a UAW member for over two years (never under contract, thank God; we finally were victorious in the decertification). These are not nice people. (I don’t mean individual members, most of whom are very nice; I mean the leadership.)
If you don’t believe it happens in this day and age, then fine; I’ll never convince you.
To those who think she would never win, what if 2010 had been a presidential election? she would have won in a landslide.