• 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!

Rove says Palin lacks ‘gravitas’ to be president

Deuce said:
Conservatives, always playing the sexist card... :lol:

I dislike Palin. Not because she's female, but because she appears to be some kind of idiot.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

She lacks the seriousness or importance for ANYONE to respect her *now* and DEFINITELY if she became president.
 
apdst said:
I'm bettin' that that ain't it. The next step would be dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You can't be taken seriously as long as you keep being so hyoperbolic.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
are you really this gullible? if the Government is the only payer, then it dictates who it pays. :failpail:
Click to expand...

you're not reading everything. But no, it dictates no more than then when the government uses contractors to build roads. And certainly no more than insurance compaanies do now. Both allow other means of service. But, you need to actually read everything posted and try to address the actual argument.
 
FederalRepublic said:
If you refuse to admit that single-payer health care is a socialist program by your own definition, there really isn't any point in having any sort of discussion with you. You will say the sky is not blue if it advances your agenda.
Click to expand...

The UK is not a socialist government, yet it has a universal payer. Canada is not a socialism, and yet they have a universal payer. What is wrong here is that you're not really getting the definition. Government must control all the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Not just a public area like building roads or health care.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nope. No one has remotely suggested we become a socialist government.
Click to expand...

stop lying-we have several posters on this board who want a socialist government and people like you who are happy to pave the road leading to it
 
Boo Radley said:
Nope. No one has remotely suggested we become a socialist government.
Click to expand...

There are dozens of politicians who want a socialist government

who are you claiming as "no one"

all I have to do is find one and you are branded a liar.

Bernie Sanders when it comes to politicians

KC and Hoplite are both socialists-one claims to be a trotskyite which is communist
 
TurtleDude said:
There are dozens of politicians who want a socialist government

who are you claiming as "no one"

all I have to do is find one and you are branded a liar.

Bernie Sanders when it comes to politicians

KC and Hoplite are both socialists-one claims to be a trotskyite which is communist
Click to expand...

I don't think dozens. Unless you're suggesting that in all government positions state and federal, you can find a dozen. Maybe. But no serious effort by anyone who can actually do that exists. True, you can be silly, or you can debate the actual point. Your choice.
 
TurtleDude said:
stop lying-we have several posters on this board who want a socialist government and people like you who are happy to pave the road leading to it
Click to expand...

When talking to me, you're talking to me and not several posters. And I have paved no such road.
 
Moderator's Warning:
"Rove says Palin lacks ‘gravitas’ to be president" is the topic. Let's try and get a little closer to that please.
 
Redress said:
Moderator's Warning:
"Rove says Palin lacks ‘gravitas’ to be president" is the topic. Let's try and get a little closer to that please.
Click to expand...

Topics do diviate from time to time. ;)
 
Guy Incognito said:
How is it a fancy Latin word? It means exactly what it sounds like, gravity.

Anyway, Rove doesn't need to use Latin to sound smart. He's the guy who still says "nukular" so as to avoid sounding too smart.

I'm telling you, it's a code word. He's saying Palin is too ditzy to be president.
Click to expand...


You might be surprised at the number of ditzy Americans out there that fall for that Palin smack. She seems to be drawing the whacko base away from the mainstream GOP. Much like the dems traditionally depending on the minority vote, the GOP has come to depend on the Limbaughnuts and FauxNewsters. Distancing themselves from the Palinite types is gonna cost the GOP some significant votes. Good news for the democrats, I suppose, but bad news for the country, IMO.
 
Captain America said:
You might be surprised at the number of ditzy Americans out there that fall for that Palin smack. She seems to be drawing the whacko base away from the mainstream GOP. Much like the dems traditionally depending on the minority vote, the GOP has come to depend on the Limbaughnuts and FauxNewsters. Distancing themselves from the Palinite types is gonna cost the GOP some significant votes. Good news for the democrats, I suppose, but bad news for the country, IMO.
Click to expand...

You must not have seen the polls. Palin wasn't popular with the RINOs. She was immensely popular with conservatives.
 
apdst said:
I'm bettin' that that ain't it. The next step would be dictatorship.
Click to expand...

HOLD ON A SECOND. I think i've underestimated you. See I've always considered you to lack the "gravitas," I use that word because I just got a warning for using a much more appropriate word to insult someone's intelligence but I think, or at least hope, this explanation gets the point across about how I feel about your intelligence.

Anyway, I always thought you lacked the gravitas to see anything more complex than a binary system, but now I've seen you've moved up to at least a ternary perspective. Now instead of seeing what you want and everything else as "socialist, communist, 6 other ist dictatorship" you've actually acknowledge that there exists something in between. Amazing.
 
Last edited:
It is scary that in a very fragmented primary race a polarizing force like Palin could actually win. The general election will be a choice between two candidates and she would probably get wiped out. Not only that, as we saw in 2008 the coat tails to the winner would probably be very long. This would sweep the dems back to a bulletproof majority for at least two years and probably more.

A Palin candidacy as a Republican in my view would mean a democratic congress congress for a generation, unless they totally blow it like 2008-2010.
 
GOP has to pay her off. If she runs, it will destroy the GOP. Palin is like Beck. Utterly useless, but very popular. She is a dangerous woman. If you attack her you anger part of the GOP base. If you support her you anger free thinking, reasonable people all over America.
 
washunut said:
It is scary that in a very fragmented primary race a polarizing force like Palin could actually win. The general election will be a choice between two candidates and she would probably get wiped out. Not only that, as we saw in 2008 the coat tails to the winner would probably be very long. This would sweep the dems back to a bulletproof majority for at least two years and probably more.

A Palin candidacy as a Republican in my view would mean a democratic congress congress for a generation, unless they totally blow it like 2008-2010.
Click to expand...

Palin Candidacy garuntees second Obama term.

A democratic Congress. Not too sure about that.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Palin Candidacy garuntees second Obama term.

A democratic Congress. Not too sure about that.
Click to expand...

I am just saying look at what happened in 2008. If the republicans are smart they need to use someone like Rove to take her down in early 2011. Waiting for the primaries will be too late.
 
Because the Republicans still cling to the old fashioned and highly undemocratic system of winner-take-all primaries, it means that a GOP hopeful who has the strong support of even one-third of primary voters can indeed win the nomination if there is not other consensus candidate. This is especially true in the first half of the primaries when the field is crowded. If Sarah Palin runs, she will command at least one-third of the vote in the primary and pretty much take many of the early primaries. She will also have scored victories over the far more establishment candidates such as Mitt Romney or other non-tea party types. This then puts the party in a bad position - they can take a deep breath and allow it to happen without a big major fight or they can go balls to the walls behind a Romney. If they do the first, they screw themselves in the General election in November. If they do the second, they could badly split the party and have a very weakened and divided GOP going into November.

Either way its a lose/lose proposition as long as Sarah runs.
 
Pretty sure she's lying about enjoying the outdoor activity. Where she has handy access to her hairspray and makeup is where she really likes to be. She's definitely putting on the outdoor activity for her constituents, but she's all girl, no doubt in my mind.
 
All this means is that liberals now have to admit that they agree with Karl Rove on something.
:shrug:
 
Goobieman said:
All this means is that liberals now have to admit that they agree with Karl Rove on something.
:shrug:
Click to expand...

I think she should run in 2012. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom