It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Round 2: souls vs GUNSINWAR - "Sarah Palin"

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 05:00 PM
The topic for this debate is "The selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate had a positive impact on John McCain's Presidential campaign ”

"souls" will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
"GUNSINWAR" will be arguing the "Con" position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:35 PM
In political elections the popularity of a candidate will have a substantial impact on how the media will sell the specific candidate. In turn, it is the media that makes a candidate popular, as is the case with Sarah Palin as the running mate for the 2008 presidential election with John McCain. Sarah Palin's role as a running mate for John McCain, had a positive impact on his presidential election. Because of the policies and actions of the administration of George W. Bush, there was a wavering feeling across the United States of America that the mistakes made, had to be fixed. The media took it upon itself to act upon the feelings and frustrations of the people of the United States of America and so, in this election we witnessed the unprecedented announcement that not only are we on the verge of selecting an African American as president of the United States of America, but there are two female candidates running along side presidential elections for the first time in history. We were sold hope and change. These points are significant, because the political ideology sold by the media is a left and right issue, Democrat versus Republican.

The Republican party had grown stagnate with the administration in office. There are to many mistakes, if they were mistakes that is, made by the administration and this had a negative effect on the entire Republican party and its reputation, even among Republicans themselves. War, economic uncertainty, a seemingly failed foreign policy were the main issues. The entire country needed radical change, and what better way than with the hopes of putting a female perspective into the mix, with Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton. The general perception of women is that they are more caring, more understanding of people's feelings than men. Women are regarded as not being fighters, but in actuality, lovers. This is why Sarah Palin's running for the vice presidency is important. The perception of her incorruptible ways is what sells this woman, and that is what the Republican party needed if they were to stand a chance at running against an African American, and a woman for president, Hillary Clinton.

Throughout this debate I will consistently show that the reasons why Sarah Palin has been a positive impact to John McCains presidential election are clear. The first being that she is a female, and the perception that females are more compassionate than men. The second being that, embedding a woman into the presidential election on the republican side, is a strategic step in countering the Democrat party and the candidates running for president. The third is that it was necessary for the media to continually have Sarah Palin in the spotlight no matter what, in order to increase her popularity and even her acceptance. Sarah Palin climbed up the polls from being just a Governor of Alaska, to being the sassy, sexy, intelligent, well spoken female who not only made some changes as Governor in her state, but now she was running for vice presidency. Plus, she was just as human as you and me, and can make mistakes like you and me. People could relate to her, mother's all over would sympathize with her. Without Sarah Palin, John McCain's presidency was doomed for failure as he may have been perceived as just another war mongering Republican. Sarah Palin, may have been just a tool on this large game of pawns, and knights, kings and queens, but sure enough, an effective one.

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:09 AM
I request a 24 hour extension for my turn! I am still recovering from my b-day..

I do apologize to me respective opponent!
Thank You

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:00 AM
Before we begin, thanks to chissler for setting up the debate. To the judges for whom to decide the out come of this debate and dedication.
To my opponent souls good luck and may the best debate win this round.

The topic for this debate is "The selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate had a positive impact on John McCain's Presidential campaign”

I will be debating the con side.


As we all know: John McCain did not win the 2008 presidential election, why?
The answer is easy Sarah Palin!
Through her action it cost the John McCain. If she had such a positive impact John McCain would have won.

Through this debate I will show our readers, Judges and even my opponent that Sarah Palin, was a Fraud, cost the Republicans thousands of dollars for doing nothing!
That she is really stupid and most important as my opponent mentioned that the media has the most important role in making the public believe through the actions of the different parties, “Democrat or Republican” which party to choose on the end of the day!
In this thread I will show that Sarah Palin failed horribly and cost poor old John McCain.

I will produce hard evidence to state all my claims to the Judges and readers.

That is all I am stating for know…..

Thank you
Judges and readers

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:27 PM
As my opponent has pointed out, Sarah Palin may have been a cost to John McCain's presidency. Sarah Palin may have cost the republican party thousands, upon thousands of dollars. Even in her own governing state she may have spend too much. Sarah Palin may even be the inexperienced career politician she sets herself up to be. As my opponent agrees, it is the media that has control over the public perception attributed to each candidate, and in reality, this is the key point to this debate. The fact remains that the psychological operation conducted by the media helped sway votes in favor of John McCain and Sarah Palin, more importantly, due to her being a female. The final outcome may not have been to be victorious over the democratic presidential nominees, but instead to provide the unsuspecting masses, the ignorant voters, a brilliant show in order to seed the notion that public opinion and voting has an actual impact on the final outcome of the election. This was necessary in order to successfully instate the predetermined candidate chosen by the corporate interest groups already infiltrated within various key positions of government.

As I have stated before, John McCain's election was doomed for failure since the beginning. He never was out to win, but only to create a sense of competition and fairness, and unfairness in the election. John McCain showed a steady rise in popularity in the later months of 2007 with a peak in popularity well into 2008. He displayed a diminishing acceptance as Barack Obama was placed more into the spotlight by the media. Issues into immigration reform, the invasion of the Middle East, the endorsement by Bush. They had a toll on his popularity, most definitely. Barack Obama had this election in the bag. In the months leading up to the election, Barack Obama was the most popular candidate among Americans, easily above the 50th percentile. There was no way John McCain could win this election. At the same time, while this was happening, the womens favorite for president, Hillary Clinton, wife of William Clinton, let everyone down. Her continued display of inexperience, incompetence, and arrogance definitely ruined any credible standing among many democrat voters, men and women as well. The hope of having the first woman president had gone down the drain. Many voters must have felt betrayed by this, and with only two options. Either vote Democrat, and go for Barack Obama, or hope for the first female vice president, with Sarah Palin, a very attractive substitute to the failed, Hillary Clinton, but still a Republican. Sarah Palin's straight forward attitude, exuberant confidence, even her sex appeal, must have seemed like a golden beacon in treacherous waters for many. And this is where my focus will be.

The announcement of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate was on August 29th, 2008. I would like to direct the audience and the judges to the following chart. 1 I have placed a still image of the chart itself for visual reference, but if you follow the link, there is an interactive version of the image you are viewing.

Reference 1

You can scroll over any point on the line chart to display a date with information on the percentage of registered voters who said they would support the specific candidate if the election would be held on that day. The range of dates are from March 7th through November 1st 2008. The dates are organized on a five day average through June 8th 2008 and a three day average from June 9th 2008. The figures are based on a combination of daily data composed by Gallup. More than 1,000 registered voters were questioned daily. Gallup claims a plus or minus 2 percent error margin. You can visit a link in the same reference provided to read about Gallup at the top of the page.

When analyzing the data, one can see that John McCain observed a seemingly “neck to neck” competition with Barack Obama throughout the date of range offered. The approval for the candidates keeps going up and down with no consistent lead from either opponent up until May 1st – June 4th 2008. This is when John McCain last saw any lead over Barrack Obama with 46% of the support. Barack Obama took off on a steady climb there after. As it can easily be seen. The next time John McCain surpassed or even came close to surpassing Barack Obama again was on September 4th. John McCain was awarded a consistent rise in approval with a peak of 49% on the 5th – 8th. He again lost the lead after the 15th of September ending with one point over Barack Obama with 47%.

For these few glorious days, we observed a seemingly hopeful rise over Barack Obama with John McCain. A lot of things were going on during this time, and you have to keep in mind that while this is all being recorded, the national media was aiding these carrier politicians in engaging in a childish war of personal attacks, smear campaigns, dirty tricks. The main objective was to create drama from a whole lot of nothing. What lacked was serious debate, about the serious issues. What lacked was the involvement from the people who really cared, and really mattered anyway. All of the actors we were sold, all engaged in these dirty tricks. The voting, now, uninformed masses, were voting on a whole a lot of irrational feelings of rage, hate, alienation, and maybe even racism and prejudice. A perfect mixture for ignorance. The media was telling everybody how and what to think. And it is no difference with Sarah Palin.

With the figures presented above I have demonstrated that there is a direct correlation with the positive rise in John McCain's approval and the selection of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate immediately after her selection. Her selection was announced at the end of August 2008, and on the eve of the Republican National Convention. To many undecided voters, Sarah Palin was a fresh addition to the John McCain campaign, her acceptance speech won her over with a 53% approval rating, according to Gallup. 2 The figures can be confirmed starting at the 7th paragraph of the article. There polling methods are described at the end of the article. I have included the graphical representation of the figures below.

Reference 2

With this new information we can further assert that Sarah Palin's announcement of the vice presidential nomination did have a positive impact on the presidential campaign of John McCain. In the days before her selection, John McCain was looking at a steady decline in approval among registered voters. The media made sure of it. But with this announcement, a new hype and bombardment of media coverage for Sarah Palin ensued. Her approval went up and naturally, John McCain's did as well. A very positive effect for his campaign, even if it was only for a short time.

John McCain's campaign was doomed to failure since the beginning. The media made sure of it. From the same graphical representation provided above, labeled Reference 1, this can also be observed. Sarah Palin did not ruin John McCain's election to the presidency, John McCain was ruined to begin with. Sarah Palin inspired a hopeful resurrection, but in the end, she is just a pawn herself, and her positive influence was only meant to be short lived, and for the purpose of continuing the show. Soon after, is when all of the negative attention to Sarah Palin really took off. Her purpose was fulfilled and was not needed anymore for now. The media was now ready to crucify her and the John McCain presidential election. Barack Obama was elected from the beginning, they just needed to soften the blow.

posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 02:47 PM
O.K let's step into second gear!

No more war, help the poor etc.
To be the President one has to be intelligent must listen, use your own descretion,” Help your fellow man”
This is what Obama with his famous words said “ CHANGE “ the American people needed a change after Bush..


If one looks at Sarah Palin's history as Governor of Alaska, I would have felt ashamed to select such a person as my VICE PRESIDENT.

I agree with my opponent that McCain cost him his own demise by selecting Sarah Palin. He was so blind to see her past mistakes, that it had cost him the election

Republican VP candidate, Sarah Palin - under her mayoral leadership in Wasilla, Alaska, rape victims were charged for their own rape kits.

A rape kit is a sexual assault forensic evidence kit, used to collect DNA that can be used in criminal proceedings to assist in the conviction of those who commit sex crimes. The rape kit test is performed as soon as possible after a sexual assault or attack has been committed. It is usually humiliating and uncomfortable for the victim-imagine enduring that and then paying $800- $1200 just so that the criminal who assaulted you might be caught. This is one of the only ways and 100% accurate test to be conducted to prosecute an offender.
Let's put this into perspective. One of the services that almost every American agrees that the government should provide is policing and investigation into crime, especially of a violent nature. Rape, one of the most difficult to prosecute, disproportionately affects women--young women, in fact.
So, not only did she neglect to support women who were raped in getting the evidence they needed to get justice, but she doesn't believe they should have the right to choose what happens with their bodies after they've endured such violation. Is that not supposed to be one of the most important factors to ensure that criminals are placed behind bars! If an offender knows, “ hey, women don't have money for these kits! I could rape even more women! Who is going to catch me!,” why would they stop committing these crimes and violating the mothers and future mothers of the American generation!
Even in my country, a third world country, we don't charge women for rape kits!

Governor Palin is an active promoter of Alaska's aerial hunting program whereby wolves and bears are shot from the air or chased by airplanes to the point of exhaustion before the pilot lands the plane and a gunner shoots the animals point blank.

Palin offered a $150 bounty for wolves to entice hunters to kill more wolves in certain parts of the state, with hunters having to present a wolf's foreleg to collect the bounty.
But later this was stopped by the court!

Alaska wildlife agency personnel reportedly staked out a known wolf denning site – a practice that is illegal under Alaska law – and, using helicopters, gunned down 14 adult wolves from the air.
When they landed, they found 14 helpless pups in the nearby dens – infant wolves ,just weeks old – and methodically shot each one in the head. 28 wolves gunned down in all!

"I am outraged by Sarah Palin's promotion of this cruel, unscientific and senseless practice, which has no place in modern America,"
actress and animal activist Ashley Judd

Due to a loophole in federal law, Alaska is the only state in the U.S. where a few hunters still use aircraft to shoot wolves or chase them to exhaustion before landing and shooting them point blank sometimes even with shot guns, making the animal suffer before it dies.
But the practice of "denning" – the killing of young wolves in the den – is prohibited even under Alaska law

According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, predators kill more than 80 percent of the moose and caribou that die there in a given year. To keep predator populations in check, the state currently has five wolf-control programs covering about 9.4 percent of the state’s land area. “Successful programs allow humans to take more moose,” its Web site claims, “and healthy populations of wolves continue to thrive in Alaska.”
Reference 1

In 2005, before Palin was elected governor, Congress passed a $442-million earmark for constructing two Alaska bridges as part of an omnibus spending bill.
Because Gravina Island has a population of 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere". Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, Congress eliminated the bridge earmark from the spending bill but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.

In 2006, Palin ran for governor with a build-the-bridge plank in her platform,saying she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this into something that's so negative."Palin criticized the use of the word "nowhere" as insulting to local residents and urged speedy work on building the infrastructure "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

As governor, Palin canceled the Gravina Island Bridge in September 2007, saying that Congress had "little interest in spending any more money" due to what she called "inaccurate portrayals of the projects."Alaska chose not to return the $442 million in federal transportation funds.

In 2008, as a vice-presidential candidate, Palin characterized her position as having told Congress "thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere." This angered some Alaskans in Ketchikan, who said that the claim was false and a betrayal of Palin's previous support for their community. Some critics complained that this statement was misleading, since she had expressed support for the spending project and kept the Federal money after the project was canceled.

Reference 2

If she can lie once she sure can lie again to the people of America!
This is all i have to state at this moment!

In my next Post I will show our Judges and readers how clever Sarah Palin really is when it comes to THE MEDIA
Thank you Judges and readers for your time!Back to my respected opponent souls

posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:03 PM
There is no denying that Sarah Palin is the inexperienced, unqualified, candidate for vice presidency that my opponent has pointed out be. There is no denying that this is part of her record. I'm sure there are more errors she has made, and will continue to make. But, let us not loose sight of the debate at hand. Did Sarah Palin have a positive impact on John McCain's campaign for presidency?

The controversy behind Sarah Palin's track record, her experience, her mistakes in her own governing state are what the media used in order to secure Barack Obama's election. There is no denying that the past presidential elections have been shrouded in fraud, corruption and corporate controls, and it is no different with this presidential election. All of these politicians are puppets and actors. It would be insane to assume that these people, knowing all of what they know about themselves, knowing that they are frauds, liars, and cheats, would put themselves to the scrutiny of an entire nation, and try to win an election supposedly based on the popular opinion of the people. The only way they bring themselves to doing this, is by playing the part, and letting the media do its job. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, John McCain. They all have tainted records, or no record at all. There supposed ideals are no more than cheap tricks in order to satisfy the ignorant belief systems of a divided nation. In essence, there is a choice for every kind of idiot. This point is reinforced further with the complete media black out, and disinterest in candidates who actually have raised the questions that non of these mainstream candidates would dare ask. The issues and solutions necessary for a real change have always been ignored.

When looking at the graph labeled Reference 1, provided earlier, it is clear that from the start date, John McCain and Barack Obama where in a head to head competition for the continuing months. Before that, John McCain in reality, never showed any real promise over Barack Obama, he continued on a downward trend, occasionally closing in on Barack Obama, but nothing significant. John McCain reached his lowest point at the end of July, and this was done all by himself, without the help of Sarah Palin. At the beginning of September 2008 is when John McCain's presidency experienced a jolt of hope. Coincidentally, right after the announcement of Sarah Palin as the running mate. This is correlation that Sarah Palin's positive effect on John McCain's election is true. The intent was never to secure the presidency with Sarah Palin. If John McCain wasn't just a tool, I would think that he would have picked a better choice. But he did not, and that comes to show that the intent was to hype up the Republicans, to sway female Democrat voters, to sway Joe the Plumber, and hockey moms all over. It most definitely worked to a degree. John McCain's approval rose and created this new found hope for the Republican presidency. This is confirmation that Sarah Palin had a positive effect on his campaign.

John McCain did not win the presidential election, and frankly, he never stood a chance. The media definitely paid more attention to the Democratic nominees early on, and in turn, this means that the manipulation of public opinion was in effect. The media coverage for Barack Obama was hands down, the most prominent. Please direct your attention to Reference 3. A study conducted by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Jounalism has found that Barack Obama received the most positive attention by the media, and in contrast, John McCain received the most negative media attention from the candidates now taking main focus from the media in the early months of the 2008 Presidential election. The media engaged in placing John McCain in a negative light in order to sell Barack Obama as the best candidate. This was the same for Hillary Clinton. The negative coverage was obvious from the beginning., and this is necessary to shape the choice of many. Barack Obama seemed like the best choice, compared to the other candidates, despite uncertainty over Barack Obama himself.

And with this I assert that Sarah Palin had a positive effect on John McCain's campaign, even if it was short lived. It was not necessary for John McCain to win the presidential election to see this. The media controlled the entire aspect of this from the beginning, and it is a very important aspect into how all of this played out. Sarah Palin was a tool to both strengthen the Republican party and maybe, to secure its demise as well. The following is part of the conclusion from the study provided in Reference 3. This helps paint the picture of how the media chose to manipulate public opinion.

Once again, the game of politics—rather than the ideas or even the background of the personalities—has dominated how the press has presented the race for president...One other finding of this study is that the news media also appear to be preoccupied with the head-to-head contest of the first major African American candidate and the first serious female contender for a major party nomination on the Democratic side...There are other factors that may have tipped the press’ gaze more toward Democrats. The Republicans candidates with large war chests announced later than Democrats, and that would explain part of why Republicans received less news attention in the first five months of coverage.  But it does not explain all of the difference, for even after the GOP race had begun, Democrats continued to get more exposure. 

That tilt toward Democrats and elite candidates was truer of some outlets more than others. One news operation studied stands out as offering a contrast to these trends--The News Hour on PBS. It took a measurably different approach, focusing on all the candidates and offering audiences a broad look at their agendas for the country....

My opponent has failed to address the figures shown previously. Let not his attempts at clouding your perception distract you from the real debate at hand. Track records of the candidates alone do not ruin a politician's career. Even some negative attention can raise the awareness of the candidate. It only matters in what light the media chooses to portray this in. This is what shapes opinions. Sarah Palin's record does not cancel the fact that she made a positive impact in John McCain's campaign, as I have proven beyond a doubt.

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:17 AM
As my opponent mentioned “ My opponent has failed to address the figures shown previously. “
I was on my way to get there, patience my friend!

Sarah Palin popularity decreased huge in September 22nd.

January 8th: 82 percent
July 22nd: 76 percent
July 31st: 78 percent
August 12th: 80 percent
September 2nd: 82 percent
September 22nd: 68 percent

This we can see from my opponents chart! There must be an reason why, remember the media has an powerful tool!

Posted: 09/3/08

Palin fired the longtime local police chief. The former police chief, Irl Stambaugh says he was fired because he stepped on the toes of Palin's campaign contributors, including bar owners and the National Rifle Association, he was trying to clean up drinking and concealed weapons in the town.

Stambaugh's lawyer, William Jermain, says the chief tried to move up the closing hours of local bars from 5 am to 2 am after a spurt of drunk driving accidents and arrests.
Odd coincidence: Palin's husband was charged with DUI back in 1986. Todd Palin.also belonged to the AIP, that Alaskan secessionist party whose founder often spews about how he hates America's government, and has cursed the flag.

Published: September 13, 2008
Reference 3

WASILLA, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin lives by the maxim that all politics is local, not to mention personal. So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.

This is what the people of America read about Palin. Ouch there is decrease in popularity for McCain, as noted in my opponents chart.

On October 10, 2008

Palin's popularity has swooned as new information about the local abuse-of-power investigation known as Troopergate has trickled out, and as national and local media pick over her track record as a governor and small-town mayor.
Ouch there is decrease in popularity,look at the chart of my opponent.

Then what happens, the media start looking into your past..As what I have done in my first section of my debate, SEXUAL ASSAULT KITS, SHOOTING OF WOLVES, BRIDGE TO NOWHERE all this was brought out by the media. The people of America read,saw who and what this women really is. Note again my opponents chart, it went all down hill.

I now direct you to this short clip, Jack Cafferty on CNN, September 26, 2008.
I know clips is not allowed in debates, but Media plays an important role, and this evidence I would like to produce to the Judges and readers to state my claim SARAH PALIN DID COST MCCAIN THE ELECTION.

(Removed YouTube Video)

Over to my opponent!,

[edit on 12-23-2009 by chissler]

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 07:14 PM
The numbers my opponent has presented show a rise of approval right after her selection at the end of August. This is a sign of a positive effect on her self, but maybe note entirely on John McCain and his campaign. I would like my opponent to point to where exactly these numbers can be found on the charts I have presented. I did not see those figures represented on the charts or within the links I have presented.

Regardless, there is no denying that Sarah Palin's decisions in her past are not good decisions. The picture she paints for herself is one of corruption. Most of all of these politicians are. One important aspect of this debate is that my opponent has not denied the picture I have painted of the way political elections are conducted in this country. The way the mainstream media puts these people out there is what matters. My opponent makes a point that it is Sarah Palin's record alone that caused John McCain's defeat in the election. Then I can assume that my opponent believes that John McCain showed promise of winning the election before Sarah Palin's selection? This would be a false idea. John McCain was already showing signs of decline in approval since the beginning. His lowest point in approval came in July at 40% and then again in November 2008. There is no denying that the spike in approval in the beginning of September was due to Sarah Palin being selected. John McCain was already defeated and did not show any positive improvements until Sarah Palin was selected as his running mate, and the short time after. The media had a large role to play in the amount of coverage for the candidates. As I have presented before, Democrats, and the hype of the first African American, or first woman to the presidency received much more coverage than Republicans. More importantly, John McCain has received the most negative news coverage since the beginning. Regardless of these things, John McCain saw a change, a positive change, in his campaign with Sarah Palin as his running mate. This is proof that she was a positive impact to John McCain's campaign. John McCain's approval increased after selecting Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, and more significantly within the Republican party itself.

One important aspect to this debate is that regardless of Sarah Palin's record, she has established her self as an influential figure within the Republican party. The media still paints it that the nation is half Democrat, half Republican. The results of the 2008 election were almost in half. This is important because as of October 1 – 4 2009, Sarah Palins' approval is above 69% within the republican party. Reference 4

This can easily get her into a future running of a major office within the party itself. Even rumors of a 2012 presidency play a role in this manipulation. This same chart shows that independents are almost in half about Sarah Palin. The seeds are planted. Regardless of who Democrats disapprove of, in the end, it will be how the media plays this out the next time around. It is no different in how the media played it this time around. They will make it about Democrats versus Republicans all over again.

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:17 PM

The picture she paints for herself is one of corruption.

Which is a negative reflection on McCain!

The way the mainstream media puts these people out there is what matters

But once the media had the opportunity to interview the former beauty queen and small town mayor, her favourability ratings dropped dramatically. In an interview with ABC News, Palin appeared not to know what the "Bush Doctrine" is. Another television interview, this one with CBS, also didn't go well, with the governor often appearing confused about major issues and offering rambling, incoherent answers.

Which is a negative reflection on McCain and herself!

There is no denying that the spike in approval in the beginning of September was due to Sarah Palin being selected.

Her voting figures automatically included Alaskan populations vote of approximately 686293 which added to McCains popularity which can be seen on my opponents graph of an increase of popularity!As more and more negatives came out about Palin ("Troopergate," $150,000 spent on wardrobes and flubbed national television interviews) as i discussed previously(REFERENCE 3).Whereby we can see the decrease in popularity on my opponents graph as seen on the beginning of October 2008. A few days before the election, 59 percent of American voters thought Palin wasn't prepared to be vice president, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.

John McCain was already showing signs of decline in approval since the beginning.

Not since the beginning, his approval was increased in the beginning then decreased then increased then decreased as noted on your graph! The most significant decrease though, will be noted as of September when Palin was elected.

John McCain has received the most negative news coverage since the beginning.

Not true! The media concentrated on Obamas race, as the first black American President, Obama was born a Muslim to a non-practicing Muslim father and for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father, the media attacked him on this too!

(Removed YouTube Video)

Over to my opponent for closing statement.

[edit on 12-23-2009 by chissler]

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:02 AM
Unfortunately, my opponent has failed to see what this debate was really about. I have never denied that Sarah Palin was a fraud, but the debate was clearly if Sarah Palin had a positive impact on John McCain's campaign. It never was if Sarah Palin cost him the election. My opponent insisted on this point alone by presenting negative news about Sarah Palin and offering them as proof of her ultimate failure along side John McCain. To this I had presented clear evidence that even up to this year, Sarah Palin's favorable rating is closing the gap on half, among all Americans, and the majority among the Republican party. Even independent voters are splitting in half. It seems she is doing not too bad considering that she is a baby wolf killer. This is obviously a positive on John McCain's campaign then, and in some future, and most notably among Republicans.

The media did its job, and it is obvious that Sarah Palin nor John McCain were out to win this election. One reason is that John McCain could have made a better choice, but he did not, he chose Sarah Palin. Would you like us to believe that he is that incompetent? This is also proof that even dirty history does not matter to the manipulation by the election coverage media outlets. They will make and break politicians, and some obviously play along.

John McCain did receive the most negative news coverage in the early start of the election and this is true. This most definitely set him back a significant amount. The proof I have presented to this is clear. The dates it specifies are approximately one year before the election, in 2007. The chart my opponent is comparing this too, where the candidates approval ratings fluctuate, ranges from the early months of 2008. The negative attention to McCain, and the Republican efforts as a whole was before this time, and was used to really set John McCain back. My opponent is confused in this point. After that, he only experienced high approval ratings over Barack Obama one more time, and that is after he announced his selection of Sarah Palin.

In another point my opponent seems confused in is that the chart I have presented represents an approval vote, not the actual election. The votes from the Alaskan population she received would not account for the decrease in approval for Barack Obama during the same time period. The votes from a state received by default, are not the same measure as opinion polling of registered voters. The Republican candidates showed promise without a doubt, and that is due to Sarah Palin. This is a positive impact on his campaign.

It was necessary for me to include the fact that in the end, for the past decades, these presidential elections are all frauds. I would like to ask the readers to think for a minute, and ask. Does a bad reputation really matter when the media controls every aspect of these election? Barack Obama was chosen president despite his political career, or lack thereof, his question of eligibility, his supposed Muslim background. This was made possible through corruption and manipulation of the masses and opinions. My proof shows a preference over some candidates over others. Also ask yourself, would the American people really elect a hand full of CFR members into the highest office of the United States of America? Are we to believe that they are that incompetent?

In conclusion, throughout this debate I have presented clear and accurate data to confirm Sarah Palin caused a positive change for John McCain and his campaign. This can bee seen as an increase in approval for John McCain in the time immediately after her selection. This positive influence for John McCain may also be seen for future dates. There is no doubt that, Sarah Palin is still an influence, specially among the Republicans. People can easily be swayed.

Thank you very much for your time, and this arena for debate and its keepers.

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:40 PM
Right from the beginning of this debate, I was set in my task to provide evidence that Sarah Palin indeed reflected negatively on John McCain's campaign - as the set topic requested. My opponent should not be mislead in thinking that I swayed from this, just because I was pointing out negativities surrounding Sarah Palin and her incompetence as running man for John McCain. The negative aspects I have pointed out, was to substanciate the fact that she was not suitable and incapable of performing such a huge task! How can anyone with so much blatant incompetence for the job at hand, bad judgement and the utter disregard for protocol, be good for ANYONE's campaign??

The fact that, as my opponent mentioned, Sarah Palin's "favourable rating is closing the gap" does not prove in any way that she has turned into a suitable leadership figure, but rather that she has a support structure capable of doing damage control - unfortunately too late though. As also mentioned by my opponent, "people can easily be swayed", what is important is that this needs to happen when it counts and by having Sarah Palin as a running man, this certainly did not count in John McCain's favour.

The fact that my opponent thinks that John McCain was not out to win the election, is ludacris! Who, in his right mind, and with great support of many taxpayers, would waste these same taxpayers' money to run a campaign for a position they are not interested in or don't want to win??

It would seem my opponent presents graphs and so called proof of ratings which has no effect on the topic of discussion. I cannot help but wonder who is missing the topic of the debate now?! Show me a graph and statistics where John McCain's ratings fluctuate significantly because Sarah Palin is selected as running man...Non-existent! It never happened! The only high approval ratings for McCain over Obama after Sarah Palin was selected, was indeed because of the Alaskan population support for Sarah Palin, as mentioned in my previous discussion. And shortly after that, Republican ratings were headed downhill again.

My opponent seems to think we need graphs and charts to determine who won the election. In case my opponent hasn't noticed - It was not McCain! No need for statistics on that matter! In fact, Sarah Palin and her flimsy attempt at running man largely contributed to this outcome.

If we are voting within a fraudulent system, why would millions of people go through the trouble of electing a leader? Does this mean that the voters are incompetent and uninformed? I beg to differ - millions and millions of voters, comprising of people of all walks off life cannot all be mislead and fooled into supporting a fraudulent system run by the most powerful nation in the world. I would urge the readers to think about THAT for a minute instead. I believe my opponent is indeed the mislead one to believe this!

The media can try to mislead as much as they want, but when Sarah Palin cannot handle a simple interview on television, stumbles over her words and shows blatant ignorance for the matters at hand, publicly, there is no need for the media to mislead - she does that for herself, proving by herself, that she is incompetent for the position and damaged McCain's campaign!

In conclusion, my content during this debate has shown that Sarah Palin had no positive effect on the McCain campaign, but actually damaged it in such a way that it cost him the election. Perhaps bad judgment on McCain's part, but certainly a mistake which cost him the seat in the White house. What the reader should bare in mind is that with Sarah Palin as running man there is a possibility of her ending up in in the White house - and that is a thought that would shrivel any spine! She can never be the leader of the mightiest nation on earth!

Thank you Judges and readers for your time reading this debate.

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:39 PM
We're off to the judges.

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 10:06 AM

This one is fairly clear cut souls picks up the win . Souls struck with the topic of the debate and GUNSINWAR never reconciles Palin background with the topic . Put another way the argument that Palin made a positive impact on on McCain Campaign before she crashed and burnt is not refuted .

I have to admit that I was a bit disappointed with this contest.. both sides failed to use one of my favorite debating tools available, the socratic questions.

souls, presented his case well at first, but could use a bit more brevity in getting points across, longer posts are not always necessary to deliver a point.

later on in the contest, souls' position seemed to lack the focus needed to nail down his side of the debate.

GUNSINWAR, was not quite as clear, for me, the majority of the argument came off more as an attack on Palin rather than disprove the topic:

"The selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate had a positive impact on John McCain's Presidential campaign"

The attempt at circumventing the video submission rule twice showed a lack of understanding of the rules of this debate.

The member's bright spot was tackling the charts that souls posted, and hammering home the decline in the tracking poll after the short spike after Palin was announced.

After review, the nod for this contest goes to


I do see promise in both fighters, and with a few more contests under their belt, both have the opportunity to shine in this forum.

souls is the victor and moves to the next round.


This thread is now open to comments from other fighters.

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 01:49 PM
Well done to souls! Congrats

I will be rooting for you in the next debate..

Thank you Judges and Chissler ..

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:30 AM
Thanks for the support GUNSINWAR. I have to admit, it was not easy arguing my position. I am glad for this tournament. Thanks to everyone who took the time to read this debate and I am looking forward to the next round.

top topics


log in