Is Palin failin' ? or OMG McCain wins with Palin !! pt. 3

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
That wasn't the point, was it? I was responding to the person's post re: why she has/had such strong support, and why that has changed over time.

Context is your friend.


I was making my own point. She has done very well in Alaska, and I don't think the governors before her enjoyed the approval ratings that she has had.
 
That's like saying the score doesn't matter in a baseball game. The passage of time (which is the opposite of simple) is the whole point. Completely different time period with totally different circumstances on pretty much every issue imaginable.

There are historical lessons to be learned and analogies than can be made to today with things that occured, 100, 500, or over a thousand years ago.



So, since you think Lincolns time is not relevant, you should be able to explain what type of experience was needed to be President in 1860 and why the experience needed today is completely different.

Yes, the political environment, issues, culture, technology, is different, but the system of government is not, and I don't think your going to find to much different in the record of experience Presidents and Vice Presidents had before taking office to today. Many of them had served as State Representitives and Senators, or Federal Representitives and Senators, Governors, just as we find today.

Since you think 1860 is to far back in time to look for lessons or analogies to today, whats the year that one can go back to look for such things?
 
She was responding to the insinuation that Palin's poll numbers are extremely high by stating that they're falling and that there are reasons for them being high outside of her job performance. You apparently ignored this.

Context is lost on you, isn't it?


The only reason her poll numbers are falling now is because of the drag that national presidential campaign will often have on anyones approval rating. I was talking exclusively about her poll numbers prior to her being selected to be McCain's VP. They are high, and I think higher than any other Governor in Alaskan history and higher than most other politicians in the country.

I made my own point that every politician out there has someone that does not like them, so listing a blog of criticism is irrelevant.
 
So why isn't Biden plummeting?

Because Biden has been on the national scene for nearly 40 years now. Everyone knows him inside and out relative to Palin. The Democrats and their allies have also decided to target Palin. Despite that, Palin still beats Biden in many of these polls.
 
Since you think 1860 is to far back in time to look for lessons or analogies to today, whats the year that one can go back to look for such things?

This is almost identical to the ridiculous Kaine questions you asked Irvine repeatedly.

My response is identical to Irvine's.
 
Because Biden has been on the national scene for nearly 40 years now. Everyone knows him inside and out relative to Palin. The Democrats and their allies have also decided to target Palin. Despite that, Palin still beats Biden in many of these polls.

Is it not fair to say, based on this line of thinking, that Palin's numbers are falling because people are getting to know more about her and don't like what they are finding out?
 
This is almost identical to the ridiculous Kaine questions you asked Irvine repeatedly.

My response is identical to Irvine's.

Thats what I thought. :wink:

How about answering this question then:

So, since you think Lincolns time is not relevant, you should be able to explain what type of experience was needed to be President in 1860 and why the experience needed today is completely different?
 
I made my own point that every politician out there has someone that does not like them, so listing a blog of criticism is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant if your discussion is only about whether or not they have people that don't like them. That's not why she referenced it, though. She referenced it for you to read it and analyze the criticism. And much of the criticism is valid.

God forbid people actually have reasons to criticize Republicans.
 
Thats what I thought. :wink:

How about answering this question then:

So, since you think Lincolns time is not relevant, you should be able to explain what type of experience was needed to be President in 1860 and why the experience needed today is completely different?

I can explain to you why the experience needed today is completely different: because the issues the executive dealt with then are totally different from the issues the executive deals with today. Foreign policy has evolved. Economics have evolved. Culture most definitely has evolved. Technology has evolved. That's why the experience needed today is different from the experience then.

I think experience, however, is best expressed through displaying knowledge and understanding of the issues. Lincoln did that in his time. Palin has not.
 
Because Biden has been on the national scene for nearly 40 years now. Everyone knows him inside and out relative to Palin.

Right. So they know him and have a stable opinion of him.

As they get to know Palin, the gag reflex kicks in.
 
Is it not fair to say, based on this line of thinking, that Palin's numbers are falling because people are getting to know more about her and don't like what they are finding out?

Perhaps, but most of it is just the reality that any new person will encounter during the course of any national Presidential campaign.
 
There is this thing called globalisation. There is also this special role the US nowadays has in the world.

But only slight differences to the international interrelations of 1860 of course.

And that's not even considering the vast differences between the two people in question.
 
My mother, a conservative leaning, registered independent, on McCain and Palin, after quiet observation for a month:

"I'm extremely disappointed in McCain. He used to be my favorite politician. But he chose her just because he thinks women who liked Hillary are stupid enough to vote for Palin just because she's a woman. I mean, there's no other explanation for him picking someone like that."

I get the indication that her brothers, who drink the Republican Kool-Aid constantly, feel the same way.
 
There is this thing called globalisation. There is also this special role the US nowadays has in the world.

But only slight differences to the international interrelations of 1860 of course.

And that's not even considering the vast differences between the two people in question.


What type of experience would some one running for President in 1860 typically of had?

What type of experience does someone running for President in 2008 typically have?

Yes, there are all kinds of differences between 1860 and 2008, but were talking about one thing, the experience required to be President.
 
My mother, a conservative leaning, registered independent, on McCain and Palin, after quiet observation for a month:

"I'm extremely disappointed in McCain. He used to be my favorite politician. But he chose her just because he thinks women who liked Hillary are stupid enough to vote for Palin just because she's a woman. I mean, there's no other explanation for him picking someone like that."

I get the indication that her brothers, who drink the Republican Kool-Aid constantly, feel the same way.

So there all voting for Obama now because McCain picked Palin?:wink:
 
What type of experience would some one running for President in 1860 typically of had?

What type of experience does someone running for President in 2008 typically have?

Yes, there are all kinds of differences between 1860 and 2008, but were talking about one thing, the experience required to be President.

The experience you need? Whatever leads you to a full understanding of the issues you will need to deal with while in the office of President.
 
Couric: You recently said three times that you would never, quote, "second guess" Israel if that country decided to attack Iran. Why not?

Palin: We shouldn't second guess Israel's security efforts because we cannot ever afford to send a message that we would allow a second Holocaust, for one. Israel has got to have the opportunity and the ability to protect itself. They are our closest ally in the Mideast. We need them. They need us. And we shouldn't second guess their efforts.

Couric: You don't think the United States is within its rights to express its position to Israel? And if that means second-guessing or discussing an option?

Palin: No, abso … we need to express our rights and our concerns and …

Couric: But you said never second guess them.

Palin: We don't have to second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe … that it is in their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them off the face of the earth. It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the earth. That's not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those are the good guys.

:crack:

This reminds me of that Miss America or whoever that was talking about the lack of maps or something... it's almost at that level of incoherence!

And it's not hard to pronounce Iraq the way it's supposed to be. It's not Eye-rack, you dumb bitch! :banghead:

:|
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom