• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If you had to choose one

Which one?


  • Total voters
    36

BDBoop

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
9,800
Reaction score
2,719
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
If you had to vote and you could only vote for one of these two, which would you choose and why?
 
I wouldn't have to worry, because I'm at the far end of the planet
 
Oh no you don't! You're in this forum. If you had to choose one to get the nomination and possibly the election, which would it be?
 
Oh no you don't! You're in this forum. If you had to choose one to get the nomination and possibly the election, which would it be?

Palin. She would be more entertaining, giving aid to NK willingly, etc...
 
Bachmann.

Palin turns me off with her tendency to run away from things half-done.
 
I would choose the unlisted but always available "slit my own throat on the spot" option!
 
You too, missy ma'am. I picked Palin.
 
Neither would beat Barack O, but I would put Palin up there just so I could watch heads explode and bans be issued.
 
You too, missy ma'am. I picked Palin.

Oh, all right! :lol: I picked Palin too, because if the unimaginable happened and she was elected, as soon as she realized that she would be expected to, like, do actual work, she'd bail and the veep... hopefully not Bachmann... would take over!
 
I still can't see either one second-chairing the other. I think Palin has a better chance of actually getting the nomination.
 
definitely palin. liberal heads would explode from coast to coast. it's not that i believe she'd make
an exceptional president. better than barack, but that's not saying much. i would want her to win
simply because it would be truly hilarious to watch the reaction.
 
Cyanide pill for moi!


palin
 
definitely palin. liberal heads would explode from coast to coast. it's not that i believe she'd make
an exceptional president. better than barack, but that's not saying much. i would want her to win
simply because it would be truly hilarious to watch the reaction.

It would be the same reaction for Bachmann. The question intended was which of these two would you actually want to see in the White House (even for those who would be voting for 'the lesser of two evils').
 
I couldn't vote for either one, I would write-in Alvin Greene, the Democrat who ran for the Senate in South Carolina in 2010.:2razz:
 
I swear to god, I'm memorizing the lyrics to O, Canada as we speak.
 
I choose heroin.
 
You too, missy ma'am. I picked Palin.

Is the poll to pick one for president, because I know some democrats want to vote for Palin so she'll lose to Obama... :lol:

I'd vote for Bachmann over Palin, because Bachmann is self made, not a quitter, and she doesn't struggle to speak full, complete sentences. I hate to use the word "ditsy" to explain Palin, because it sounds sexist... but ummmm.... what is a better word to call her?
 
Oh, all right! :lol: I picked Palin too, because if the unimaginable happened and she was elected, as soon as she realized that she would be expected to, like, do actual work, she'd bail and the veep... hopefully not Bachmann... would take over!

If she quit her VP would just take over and she'll probably pick somebody like orly taitz.. so we'd be doomed
 
If I really must pick one of these two train wrecks, then it has to be Bachmann for the sole reason that she's not a quitter.

What's so bad about quitting? Sometimes one evaluates a situation and decides that it is not productive enough, efficient enough or is just plain boring. And they say "ok, that's enough for me, thanks". What's so terrible about that? Must we dogmatically stick to every idea we have or venture in which we partake - forever and ever (or at least the end of contract) no matter what? That approach seems a little crazy to me. People change their minds, situations change, and events and the environment must be constant factors adjusting all of our decisions and trajectories. I think sometimes quitting, even if it means breaking a contract, is best for everyone involved. Maybe sometimes quitting is bad, but is it inherently horrible?
 
Back
Top Bottom