It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Cheapening of the Democratic System via Sarah Palin

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Let be more direct: Can Obama hold enough of Democratic base together to win the election? He already PO'ed half of the primary voters by not selecting Hilliary as his running mate.

Yes McCain's selection of Palin was to shore up his base, but by selecting a women he went directly after part of Obama's base (Female Hillary voters).

To me, the Obama side is crying foul over something they should have done themselves in the first place. It's was a no brainer to select Clinton as VP. He has only himself to blame if he loses this election.




posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Can Obama hold enough of Democratic base together to win the election?


If I knew that, I'd be a lot less concerned than I am, not to mention a wealthy woman, being able to read the future and all.
The answer is that I have no idea.



Yes McCain's selection of Palin was to shore up his base, but by selecting a women he went directly after part of Obama's base (Female Hillary voters).


And therein lies the "cheapening" that the title speaks to. McCain (or whoever actually chose Palin) did so because she has the same sex organs that Hillary has. And that's where their similarities end. The two women are diametrically opposed politically. And this being a political election, I do not understand a woman who would vote for sex organs.

So any woman who was voting for Hillary's sex organs will probably vote for Palin's. I hope they make a good president.




To me, the Obama side is crying foul over something they should have done themselves in the first place.


I don't see anyone crying foul. Nobody's saying that anything illegal or any "cheating" was done. Speaking for myself, this is just our opinions about the selection of Sarah Palin. The reasons, the motivations and what it means for politics and the country.



He has only himself to blame if he loses this election.


Right you are. If he loses a fair election, (and by that, I mean all votes are counted, no cheating and no hanging chads) it will be his fault. No argument. And I'm sure he agrees. I don't think anyone's trying to blame you.


BTW, I'm GLAD he didn't choose Hillary. If he had, I very likely would have voted for someone else. SO while he may have gained some votes with that pick, he would have lost some, too. There are many people (women included) who do NOT like Hillary.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I remember reading that after McCain choose Palin for his veep, the democrats got a influx of donations...$10 Million if I recall.....which only says one thing to me....the Democrats are running scared because of McCains choice.


I was surprised that Obama didnt pick Hillary as his veep. Unless he was afraid that she might tell him what to do...

This is the strangest presidential campaign that I have ever witnessed.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


You express yourself well BH, for that I admire you. I don't agree much with you, but I do enjoy discussing with you. You keep it civil, which I greatly appreciate.

To me it's pretty obvious the Democrats are in a tizzy over the selection of Palin, otherwise why all the dirt/innuendos being thrown her way, you don't see the Republicans talking about Obama selecting a known plagiarist as his running mate do you? They don't fear Biden like the Dems seem to fear Palin, she's only the VP candidate for crying out loud. They should be running more against McCain than against Palin IMO, but I'm done giving the Democrats free advice. Not that they listen to any of it.



[edit on 13-9-2008 by pavil]

[edit on 13-9-2008 by pavil]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Are you kidding me? You are upset that Mcain picked Palin? This bothers you and you somehow feel that it is dirty politics. I think what bothers you is that she is charismatic, dynamic, likeable and she has energized the right. Obama was killing until the Palin pick and now he is loosing. Perhaps you should be upset with the Bidon pick or the never ending attemp to discredit Palin or picking a candidate that is so far left that even Democrats as myself is having a hard time backing.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
I don't agree much with you, but I do enjoy discussing with you. You keep it civil, which I greatly appreciate.


Likewise.


I think some probably are in a tizzy. And I'm just as sure that there are many who just really don't like her and think the choosing of her demonstrates a cheapening of democracy. There are probably some who fear her, but I assure you, some people think she's just pathetic. Democrats don't all think with one mind any more than women do.


I have seen the Republicans (and others) throwing every piece of dirt they can at Obama. And he was ELECTED! So, from my vantage point, there's not that much difference in what one party is willing to say about the candidate of the other.

What I find interesting is that McCain and Biden are two old white men. And Obama and Palin are taking all the heat. I agree the Democrats should be running against McCain and I think they will over the next month and a half. But Palin is new and unknown.

She IS going to be vetted, publicly if nothing else. Today we learned that her stories of traveling to Iraq were not even true. We're learning more about her all the time. I imagine by November, we'll all know her much better then we do now and that is as it should be.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
PATHETIC!
This thread and the premise of the OP is pure CRAP!
Clearly what I am seeing here is the typical Dem double-standard of "It is OK for me to question and belittle everything about you but don't you dare do that to me" mentality. And frankly... it is transparent as glass.



No double standard. Obama was vetted for the past two years. Scrutinized, looked at, criticized and praised. He was chosen because the Democrats wanted him to run.

I am voicing my opinion, which last I checked is still legal and allowed. Sorry you think it was crap.



I am absolutely amazed by the liberal blindness in this campaign... Obama (Who is running for PRESIDENT!) has less experience than the Republican ticket's choice for VP, yet they continually attack Palin's supposed lack of experience without addressing Obama's much more serious lack thereof.


You wanna talk about blindness or "following the herd" without mentioning the Republicans? The whole crowd was screaming about experience and then they bring in Palin and suddenly everyone is praising her for her incredible accomplishments and how a few years as mayor of a town of 5,300 and the a couple years as Governor. Talk about blindness....



Next, as the ticket of alleged "Change" Obama selects one of the longest standing Senators from the old guard - Biden has served for 36 years!
Yeah, that is change I can believe in.



I think Benevolent Heretic covered this one pretty well. Joe Biden was chosen because of his foreign relations experience. This is important because foreign relations will be the biggest challenge of the next president because of how royally the republicans have screwed it all up.



The Democrats are being exposed and realized for being the hypocrites that they really are and people are catching on. The tantrums being thrown by the left are typical when they can't put one over on the public.


Not tantrums. Just asking for the same scrutiny that Obama/Biden had/has.



And before any moronic partisan barbs come flying my way - I am NOT voting for McCain/Palin, I'm voting third party. I'm just calling it as I see it - and how millions of other Americans are seeing it as well.


You mean "barbs" like "This thread and the premise of the OP is pure CRAP!", or how about, "I am absolutely amazed by the liberal blindness".

Practice what you preach, champ.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Cheap tactics.....Like running a young black man to get the left wing votes.
Please the DNC is just as guilty. Just not as smart. Hillary would have won Obama the election. They made a major mistake and McCain took advantage of it. Palin has put McCain ahead in electoral votes, and as we know from Gore...Popular vote does not matter.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
Cheap tactics.....Like running a young black man to get the left wing votes.


Barack Obama ran against a formiddable candidate who had connections in politics, had name recognition and plenty of campaign money in the start, yet Obama still won. Obama ran for president and EARNED the votes to get the nomination. His not some random guy who was picked out of nowhere to gain the black vote. He didnt start serious politics a mere 2years ago, the time in which these candidates started their campaigns, and he wasnt the one making "experience" his core arguement.

You cant make the comparison between him and the random VP pick of Palin to get the women vote, I mean are you serious? If Palin had run for president and earned the Republican votes for the nomination then theres a comparison to be made.. however that didnt happen and I dont see that happening for a long time. She was chosen to be VP, she never ran a campaign to earn votes. This political stunt is yet more proof of gender discrimmination still verymuch existant in the GOP. Lets just choose somebody for their gender and assume women will just fall one by one for her.


Please the DNC is just as guilty. Just not as smart. Hillary would have won Obama the election.


You sure about that? Because from what I know the Republicans were licking the lips at the thought of Hillary becoming the Democratic nominee not to long ago. This woman carries more negative political luggage than any other Democrat, not considering that despite all her advantages at the beginning she still lost, and your almost certain she would have, or are you just trying to be more negative? And why should the Democrats be as inconsiderate as to choose her purely for her gender? I tell ya that there are just asmuch, if not more voters who would have not voted in Obama had he chosen Hillary. The media is just making a show of it... as usual...


They made a major mistake and McCain took advantage of it. Palin has put McCain ahead in electoral votes, and as we know from Gore...Popular vote does not matter.


Yes how wonderful, I guess this didnt count in the case of Hillary? Or the months of time Obama was ahead of McCain, I guess that didnt count? Only when Obama is disadvantaged, then it counts


[edit on 14-9-2008 by southern_Guardian]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator



conservative
1. tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions :


I find it silly that there are people want to stop or quell PROGRESS - this notion is the MOST FUTILE of ideas. THE same "conservative minded" people of the past believed in: an oath of faith, slavery, no vote for women, white supremacy ( in the public domain )







Your definition of what a "Conservative Mind" represents is completely illogical and amazingly flawed. Conservative can mean any number of things, such as the ideals upon which this Nation was Founded, or maintaining lost values such as that of a Strong Family Unit, or the Sanctity of Unborn Life. These are many values upon which modern society has completely lost focus, and many would say that is the very reason behind why we have problems such as: Violence, Neglect, and general Social Decay.

On the other hand, Liberalism does not denote itself to "Progression" anymore than Conservatism denotes itself to "Regression". To maintain positive lost values is to many in this modern age, as true a form of Progression as any. However, if one is to take to the extremely Liberal ideologies of Socialism, Marxism, or even Communism, then many would consider such to be Regressive.

True Progression is a balance between Conservative ideals, and Liberal thoughts. You only Regress when you ignore the Balance, and Take to extremes.



[edit on 9-14-2008 by TheAgentNineteen]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthWithin
2. To me, it was a direct insult to women. Let's face it. This action was a direct response to Hillary Clinton not getting the nomination, and it was political ploy to deepen the rift among democrats. Is this "change"? No. It was a blatant and shameless pandering effort on behalf of the Republicans to appeal to women.


Well, dishonesty is nothing new in politics. But the point is, they have succeeded to a large extent, whether they do it shamelessly or not! It's the end that counts whatever the means.

Remember that 'Bridge to Nowhere'? She claimed that she had said 'thanks, but no thanks'. The truth is, whilst campaigning for governor, she never said 'no thanks'. Instead she was all for the bridge which had already become a scandal, insisting that she would "not allow the spin masters to turn this project into something that's so negative."

And needless to say, she didn't reject Washington's handout in the form of federal money earmarked for the project. She accepted it but spent it on something else!

Talk of propriety in public life! And she claims that she's a messiah against wasteful expenditure! So Ms Palin, where did that federal money go? What did you spend it on?

But in spite of empty rhetoric and blatant obfuscation of issues, she'll still get the votes. And that's a tragedy.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


You are misinformed about slavery. The Republican party,led by Abraham Lincoln ( a Repub), led the way in abolishing slavery.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Typical fodder,you never hear about Obama and the fact he has never been in any position of power



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by missvicky
 


Me thinks you protest too much. You wouldn't be caring if your candidate was still leading in the polls. You guys (and gals) have only yourselves to blame for not running a better campaign. Look in the mirror, you shot yourselves in the foot by not securing half of your political base.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthWithin
 





She has very little experience and does not have half the judgment that Obama has exhibited oer this TWO YEAR vetting process.


Well let's hope so. During this time our glorious senator Obama has had the distinction of receiving land and legal help from Tony Rezko, indicted racketeer, con man and the recipient of millions of dollars from wealthy Arab islamo-fascists. Rezko, himself was born in Syria.

Obama also engaged in a quid-pro-quo crooked stock deal where he bought stock in AVI Biopharma, received money from them and then voted for them to receive government contracts.
blog.washingtonpost.com...

Obama also voted for lawmakers to be able to receive bribes whilst serving the Illinois legislature.

However, IMHO, the most telling tale of Obama's "good" judgement is his support for the Kenyan islamic jihadist Raila Odinga, who happens to be his cousin. Apparently that support did not waver even after Odinga's thugs went on a rampage and slaughtered 1/2 million christians after Odinga lost the election for Kenya's president.
iperceive.net...
www.wnd.com...


That's the true Obama, a supporter of genocidal muslim terrorists and a corrupt self aggrandizer. Other than that he has my full support.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


You cite blog and World Nut Daily? Seriously? I thought this thread was about Palin...

Get some real sources please if you are going to spew this hogwash.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthWithin
 


My point is that the claim that Obama has better judgment than Palin is categorically false. I'd rather have an uninformed but righteous person in office than any Rhodes scholar corrupt demogogue. Of course Obama is no Rhodes scholar like Clinton was, but he is certainly corrupt.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenThunders
I'd rather have an uninformed but righteous person in office


What a scary thought... You see, being uninformed guarantees making WRONG decisions. Why you would want this for this country, baffles me.

We've had enough of uninformed and righteous people in high offices in the past few years, and look what that did to our country. Enough of that nonsense!



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join