The Cheapening of the Democratic System via Sarah Palin, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times


reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 10:58 PM by DINSTAAR
reply to post by mental modulator



YOU can only slow it down - MY kind get the last laugh ALWAYS - even if it is from the grave.


So it was your kind that got us into these messes. Good. Now I have someone tangible to blame.


I am not upset she is a woman, I am upset because I believe that the RNC is using the fact that she IS a woman for political gain, not because she would be the bet candidate. Country First? Hardly... Should be Politics First.


And..... what did the democrats do basically the same thing, indoctrinating Obama's candidacy on the American people?



The idea of President Palin is just plain scary to me and seems like an impulsive, reckless, and primarily political decision on McCain's part.


Channel that negative energy and point it towards Obama as well.


McCain is not a healthy man


Because he's old?


You know you can just decide to not vote for McCain due to his choice of Palin.


I would rather you not vote for McCain because he is a hack. The thought of him being president makes me cringe as much as the thought of Obama being president.


Obama chose someone who was strong on foreign policy and experience, where he himself was somewhat weak. He chose someone who has a lot of experience and could make a seamless transition should Obama die in office.


He is using Biden for the experience label.

Obama picked a liberal McCain and McCain picked a conservative Obama.



What this all comes down to is that if you like the status quo, vote for McCain-Palin. If you want change, vote for Obama-Biden.


This rhetoric means nothing.... here, let me correct it. "What this all comes down to is that if you like the status quo, vote for McCain-Palin. If you want the status quo, vote for Obama-Biden."


The people on top of the heap don't want change because they might not be on top any more.


Are you implying that the only people on the top of the heap are Republicans? I would beg to differ if this is your intent.

The truth is, there is no real, worthwhile change in our future regardless of who wins. When campaigns take 'the high road' its just an indirect way to do politics as usual. I wish politicians would say what they mean so no one would ever vote for them. Instead they just skate around spinning all of their words as not to offend.

Bipartisan politics is so blatantly rotten to the core. I do not know why any of you here on ATS waste your time. I thought we were the ones who didn't drink the kool-aid.

Peace


reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 12:01 AM by Blaine91555
My reply,

A Call To Action
New threads in the Campaign 2008 forum must be based on published candidate platform items, either officially, or from recent interviews....

.... New Threads About Any Candidate for the 2008 U.S. elections (national or regional) must be started in the Decision 2008 forum.




reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 12:11 AM by TruthWithin
reply to post by Blaine91555


Thanks Sheriff, didn't see my sourced material, on a interview? Read ALL THE WAY to the bottom.

Thanks for the recap though.

I didn't mean to hurt so many conservative feelings. I am sorry. I thought you guys were the tough ones?!

This is a legit debate. It is my opinion. I stand by it.


reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 01:23 AM by TheInformer
I would have to agree there is some truth to what the OP is saying but he has somewhat of a biased view about it, the choice of Palin energized the conservative base, her pro gun/religion anti gay/abortion ensure the base and in that aspect was clearly a good choice BUT in other aspects it was a bad one. Earmarks, to sum it up in one word.

Its also obvious that the choice of a women was a political move to convert over the unhappy Clinton faithful and it that way it is offensive to some, mainly democratic/independent women. Palin's views are completely 180 from Clintons and those comments at the RNC about the 'cracks in the glass ceiling' were to much. Palin's continued remarks about Clinton and snubbing of Ferraro is proof to me that McPalin are trying to take advantage of the tension from the dem primarys and are trying to split the Democrats.

Dronetek: Palin is more expierenced then Obama?
Maybe its because im from Illinois and i'm more familier with Obama but Palin is from a state bordering Canada and is very close to Russia but she didnt have a Passport until 2007. That shows poorly on here foreign policy expierience, furthermore if I am correct the OP created this thread with the intent of having a discussion about the political motives of choosing Palin, and made no mention of Obama. I see no reason to turn this into a Left/ Right mudslinging thread. It would be nice if I was fortunate enough to have people following me around starring all my posts.


reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 05:46 AM by loam
reply to post by buddhasystem


And therein lies the principle reason why it no longer looks like a given Obama will be President.

Democrats couldn't TRUST one another.

When HALF of the Democratic electorate wants someone else, and you ignore that demand, what do you expect?

Remember this woman?



Crying foul because McCain did what Obama wouldn't- secure the party's base -seems like sour grapes to me.

For all of the talk of change, which was to include abandoning the divisive politics of the past, I find it amusing hearing the 'purist' arguments made with regard to putting Clinton on the ticket.

*sigh*

In my view, ignoring a base of votes nearly equal to your own *IS* a 'cheapening of the democratic system'.


[edit on 13-9-2008 by loam]


reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 08:23 AM by Benevolent Heretic
I just want to respond to some questions here.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Why are the republicans are not free to select any candidate they want? Why do they need approval of non-republicans (you) to go about their business?


You're asking questions based on something the OP didn't say. He didn't say that Republicans aren't free to pick who they want OR that they need anyone's approval. He expressed how he felt about it.


Why is it a cheap stunt? Because they are trying to win???


IMO, it's a cheap stunt because that seems to be their first and only priority. As I said in this post. She adds nothing to the ticket but votes.


Don't you think the Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to win??


Democrats are trying to win. But it's not their only priority and they're not selling out. If they ONLY wanted votes, they would have picked Hillary. But that's not what they saw as the best pick for the country. THAT'S their priority, what's best for the country. Even though McCain says "Country First", it's clearly just empty words.

Actions speak louder than words...


Luckily for us, that decision is left up to the voters of the individual states to decide, and not your or me.


Agreed. That is, if the election isn't a sham.


If you google her name, you can (or could a week ago) find old youtube videos of a "write in campaign" that stretches back to april, of republicans wanting her as a VP for whomever won the primaries.


I totally believe that. "The Party" (whoever that is) is running this thing, not John McCain. And that will be how his presidency is run. By the same people who have been running the Bush administration for the past 8 years.


I'm not sure how you insult a group by selecting one of their members as a running mate.


Not all women are insulted. I would be insulted if I were Palin. But it's really none of my concern. I don't let it bother me. However, I do have opinions about it. And I have the opinion that she's been used and doesn't even care because to her, winning is all that matters, too. She doesn't care that she was picked for her "gender appeal". If that gets her the spot, that's great!

I don't think the OP or his wife should waste their energy being insulted.


reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 08:45 AM by loam
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


That's an interesting take, but if true, demonstrates something else I think is true then.

Change is the new meaningless political buzz word.

Assuming your view is correct, it certainly could have never meant reaching across to those you disagree with and finding common ground.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by loam]


reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 11:08 AM by pavil
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



BH, are you saying the Democrats don't have the party unity to "close ranks" to win an election? You are the second person (both Democrats) in this thread to mention that kind of thought. I would be concerned with that if I were you.



reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 11:17 AM by loam
reply to post by pavil


I agree. I just don't get that.

Saying that, and even sounding proud about it, blows my mind. At best, it's demonstrative of an unrealistic world view. No one will ever agree with you 100%-- let alone politicians. It's essentially the equivalent to giving up on ANY improvements because you can't have ALL of the ones you want.

I just don't get this political logic.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by loam]


reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 11:31 AM by DocMoreau
I agree with the OP.

It has been my view that the McCain campaign has made a crucial mistake with their pandering to women in their selection of Sarah Palin. Although I view certain aspects of her 'personal life' to be indicative of the type of leader she is and would be (the silver lining that her teenage daughter is keeping her baby, instead of 'preemptively' being allowed to use a condom or to actually abstain from intercourse for one), I find the process by which she was introduced and the lack of access by the media to be a major red flag.

The women in my life are put off by her and the selection of her. The Hillary supporters smell the sideways politics in the selection, and won't bite, and for the most part seem to be on the Obama bandwagon now. The Obama supporters are not going to be swayed anyway. I have also gotten the feeling that some of the female Independents I know have made their choice because of Palin, but not for her. But more interesting to me, is the negative backlash I have heard from Republicans. Not the Ron Paul-ites, but more mainstream types. Female Republicans who admire what Sarah Palin has accomplished so far, but wonder about all the baggage and lack of experience. My Great Aunt, who shall we say is not fond of 'non-whites', wondered why McCain didn't pick Condoleeza Rice if he wanted a Republican woman. I can't quote her directly, out of respect for everyone, but lets say she said that McCain could have had some Obama supporters and Hillary supporters. She also said, that if McCain really was a 'Maverick' why didn't he just choose Hillary himself? I love her dearly, but she expresses herself in language of a different era... Those are the impressions I have been getting. But then again, I don't spend much time with Evangelical Christians. I do however live in a Republican district in a state with a Democratic Majority.

I have felt that the McCain campaign has been playing catch-up the whole campaign, even though he gained enough convention votes months ago, way before Obama. If McCain were really the maverick he claims to be, he would have chosen Palin way before the convention. Then again, that might have forced Obama to choose Hillary anyway.

What I really don't understand is the party line from the Republicans being, "Obama is going to be sorry he didn't choose Hillary". I would think that unsolicited election campaign from your rivals saying that would mean the opposite. Maybe I am wrong.

Either way, I feel that the process has been cheapened by McCain's reactionary selection. Not only are his chances at election weaker in my opinion, but in his first Executive Decision that could affect all us Citizens, he has shown poor leadership. He has shown that he will make rash decisions based on a skewed perspective of America and her Citizens.

To the Member that claimed that Obama was introduced for months and months via 'puff pieces' I would like to point you to Obama's 'introduction' to America at large, and it was not a 'puff piece', it was his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. After that speech, people wanted him to be their leader. At that point Hillary was starting to be anointed for 2008. It was a foregone conclusion. But Obama supporters drafted him to run in 2008, even though he was inexperienced.

Obama's introduction to America has been a gradual process for four years. McCain and Biden are well known. Palin started to get traction as a potential choice in early June 2008.
One of this kids is not like the other, and it is not because she is a woman.
DocMoreau

Obama's introduction 4 years ago...




reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 01:21 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by TruthWithin


I'm not a Republican. I'm getting sick of being labeled because I'm not a radical on either side. I'm sick of character assassination being passed off as issue related. Were this about Obama, my response would have been the same. Not everyone here is a rabid supporter of either Party. They both have major issues. I did not vote for Palin by the way.

Do you believe the rules only apply to Conservatives by the way???? I noticed some were accusing that bias. Which of these threads are allowed will tell the tale.

This is about a Candidate. It is not in the correct forum.

I'm currently considering writing in "none of the above" personally. Nobody running is worth voting for.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



DEA is Investigating Montana State Legislators Over State Laws
  Posted 10 days ago with 59 member flags
Who is really behind the birthers and what is their real motive?
  Posted 10 days ago with 11 member flags
ESF and Black op funding.
  Posted 8 days ago with 11 member flags
There is NO Media Bias in America
  Posted 9 days ago with 10 member flags
White House pressure on Gulf oil leak figures
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags