• 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!

Poll: Huckabee, Gingrich, Palin or Pawlenty?

I hope one of them run and win the right to be on the ballot because they will all lose.
 
The two threads are not related, or indicative of some pattern I've established.

False. In both threads you brought up examples of the Democrat party's racist past to support your points. In both examples you failed to understand the larger picture even though it seemed like you were focusing on the details.

I may have gotten the Southern Democrat thing wrong as a matter of political theory,

You did get it wrong. There is no question about this. It's why you didn't reply.

but Robert Byrd WAS in the KKK

And this is what I am trying to explain to you. He WAS in politics BEFORE he became a Senator, BEFORE the majority of Americans were born, BEFORE he engaged in a life of public service. Not whilst.

, and it is a valid point if we're going to insist that a politician's personal failings must define their candidacy.

The personal failings of Newt relate to his job. He became a polarizing figure DURING his tenure in Congress, DURING his career in public service. Not AFTER. Do you not see the difference yet? It's not about the personal failings. It's about when these failings happened and their context in modern day history.

You're arguing as if I actually cared about Byrd's time in the KKK. I seriously don't.

And the fact that you don't care makes you ignore significant details. Which in turn makes you unfit to debate the subject.

You're arguing as if I thought Newt was a stand-up guy. I seriously don't.

Newt is just a smart fiscal conservative who's managed to balance a Federal budget. That's good enough for me.

And he's part of the Social Conservative America that I dislike. Not good enough for me.
 
Last edited:
False. In both threads you brought up examples of the Democrat party's racist past to support your points.

Except I was arguing from two totally different premises and making two totally different points. The former discussion was about racism specifically, and I admit that I was incorrect; the racism inherent to this discussion is merely incidental; I could have used ANY personal failing of ANY Democratic politician in order to highlight my point. If you can't distinguish between two totally different situations that occurred months apart then that's your problem.

You did get it wrong. There is no question about this. It's why you didn't reply.

Well, whoopety-****ing-doo! I guess every time I'm wrong I should just make a special announcement to forum. That way you can truly revel in my ignominious defeat...:roll:

Would you rather I refuse to admit that I'm wrong and continuing arguing as if I weren't?

And this is what I am trying to explain to you. He WAS in politics BEFORE he became a Senator, BEFORE the majority of Americans were born, BEFORE he engaged in a life of public service. Not whilst.

What a silly argument. Just because someone does something BEFORE they enter politics doesn't mean they're absolved of it or that it's irrelevant.

Mr. Smith WAS a child rapist BEFORE he became a Senator, BEFORE the majority of Americans were born, BEFORE he engaged in a life of public service. Not whilst.

The personal failings of Newt relate to his job. He became a polarizing figure DURING his tenure in Congress, DURING his career in public service. Not AFTER. Do you not see the difference yet? It's not about the personal failings. It's about when these failings happened and their context in modern day history.

Newt was doing his job. Clinton perjured himself and Newt went after him. That's politics. That Newt was cheating on his wife at the time is a lamentable commentary on his personal values but it's not something that would define his candidacy for me.

And he's part of the Social Conservative America that I dislike. Not good enough for me.

I never had any illusions that you were going to vote for freaking Newt Gingrich. I'm just explaining to you why his adulterous lechery isn't a huge deal to me.
 
Newt has the highest intellect. I doubt there's a single Democrat who can debate him. But I voted for Pawlenty because I figure he's got the best chance.

When has he proven himself some master debater? Obama would wipe the floor with him
 
When has he proven himself some master debater? Obama would wipe the floor with him


I don't know, Newt has a very big mind. I think a debate between the two would be fascinating. They are both teachers at their core. A part of them, anyway.
 
I don't know, Newt has a very big mind. I think a debate between the two would be fascinating. They are both teachers at their core. A part of them, anyway.

Of course he might ramble off on some policy issue... debating is a skill
 
Gingrich is a non starter and should get no ones support for any office. He disgraced his last office and should be considered only in an advisory capacity for others.
Pawlenty lacks the star power and is not a Statesman like figure nor is he a stand out at anything thus far.
A winning ticket could be Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. He has the brain power and ability to talk in terms people can understand and she scares the living hell out of the media and the Commie leftists that have taken over the Democrat because she does not fear them.
This country needs a Statesman at the helm to replace the Marxist Obama who is out to reduce the Nation to third world status and bring about a one world rule with Communism aa the guiding force. If Obama doesn't fail we all will. Mike Huckabee could be groomed into a Statesman with the right people and attitudes around him. But there still may be others to come who could be better.
The two things I know for sure are Gingrich is untrustworthy and Pawlenty is untested and therefore unworthy of the top job, he might work as VP but that's it for now.
 
Gingrich is a non starter and should get no ones support for any office. He disgraced his last office and should be considered only in an advisory capacity for others.
Pawlenty lacks the star power and is not a Statesman like figure nor is he a stand out at anything thus far.
A winning ticket could be Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. He has the brain power and ability to talk in terms people can understand and she scares the living hell out of the media and the Commie leftists that have taken over the Democrat because she does not fear them.
This country needs a Statesman at the helm to replace the Marxist Obama who is out to reduce the Nation to third world status and bring about a one world rule with Communism aa the guiding force. If Obama doesn't fail we all will. Mike Huckabee could be groomed into a Statesman with the right people and attitudes around him. But there still may be others to come who could be better.
The two things I know for sure are Gingrich is untrustworthy and Pawlenty is untested and therefore unworthy of the top job, he might work as VP but that's it for now.

Quoted for hilarity.
 
When has he proven himself some master debater? Obama would wipe the floor with him

I don't know if many politicians could stand up to actual debate. Not the contrived, scripted, and planned out events which we currently call debate where questions are screened and known before hand. I mean, actual debate with real questions from the audience in which politicians actually tell us what they plan to do.
 
Pawlenty lacks the star power and is not a Statesman like figure nor is he a stand out at anything thus far.

I don't want star power. What has that gotten us thus far? Crap. I want someone who will do the job and do it well, one in compliance with my own political platform. That's it. I don't care about "stardom" or any of that other crap. Getting sidetracked into that will never yield a satisfactory politician. Well maybe not "never", but chances are significantly reduced.

Depending on what Pawlenty would say, what his platform would be; I could vote for him. I'll never vote for either Huckabee or Palin. A theocrat and an idiot do not sound like a winning combination to me.
 
I don't know if many politicians could stand up to actual debate. Not the contrived, scripted, and planned out events which we currently call debate where questions are screened and known before hand. I mean, actual debate with real questions from the audience in which politicians actually tell us what they plan to do.

Do you not accept the second "town hall debate"
 
Do you not accept the second "town hall debate"

The vast amount of "town hall debates" are exactly as I described. I don't trust most of them. I'd give the Presidential debates back to the League of Women Voters as it was in the past and try to set up actual debate. A forum in which actual ideas and political agenda are offered up and debated. Responding to unscripted, unknown questions by the audience.
 
The vast amount of "town hall debates" are exactly as I described. I don't trust most of them. I'd give the Presidential debates back to the League of Women Voters as it was in the past and try to set up actual debate. A forum in which actual ideas and political agenda are offered up and debated. Responding to unscripted, unknown questions by the audience.

What about the "gotchya" questions like the Rape one that Dukkakkis got asked?
 
What about the "gotchya" questions like the Rape one that Dukkakkis got asked?

How long ago was that? I mean, you can maybe get what, a handful of these "gotchya" questions. They're ok (depending on context of course), but I'd like to see more probing questions into platform, ideals, and plans.
 
How long ago was that? I mean, you can maybe get what, a handful of these "gotchya" questions. They're ok (depending on context of course), but I'd like to see more probing questions into platform, ideals, and plans.

that was when they started probing the audience. That question was one reason Dukkakkis lost. I can understand politicians trying to avoid questions like that.
 
that was when they started probing the audience. That question was one reason Dukkakkis lost. I can understand politicians trying to avoid questions like that.

While there is always room for reasonable restriction, I think we've gone well overboard and now do well more damage to the Republic than some "gotcha" questions can do to some politicians. They want to use my power and sovereignty, they're going to have to stand up to some rather intense scrutiny, that's all there is to it.
 
While there is always room for reasonable restriction, I think we've gone well overboard and now do well more damage to the Republic than some "gotcha" questions can do to some politicians. They want to use my power and sovereignty, they're going to have to stand up to some rather intense scrutiny, that's all there is to it.

I would personally like to see something more like the Lincoln-Douglas Debates.
 
I hear those suckers were hours and hours long. I'd fall asleep.

A shorter version, of course. But maybe have 5 issues picked out, and each person speaks for 5-15 minutes (depending on when they're speaking) in a standard L-D format.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE&feature=related"]YouTube- HuckChuckFacts[/ame]
 
Where is the actual "poll" in this poll?

Or is there a pole?
 
Last edited:
There is not need for you to vote, because Chuck Norris has already spoken for you.
 
Chuck Norris jokes died two years ago, along with his popularity.

I would say none of the above because they are all Republicans.
 
Back
Top Bottom