• 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!

I want Palin on the 2012 Republican Ticket!

Do you want Palin on the 2012 Repbulican Presidential Ticket?

  • Total voters
    51
Hopeful candidates, though?

I don't want to see anymore Republicans and Democrats in any of hte branches of government - they've dominated our country for 100 years. Are we better off? Are things stellar? Are we avoiding turmoil and troubles?

I want to give another party the chance to lead - I don't really care if people think "it's a wasted vote" - I'm very tired of the century-old lame tee-tee-totter crap that goes on in politics. I'm VERY tired of it and many other people are thinking the way I am about it.
 
Goshin said:
Sara Palin isn't a viable candidate anymore.


2012: Jim DeMint.
Click to expand...

Now see?? There's a name I never heard before. Must go read.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Hopeful candidates, though?

I don't want to see anymore Republicans and Democrats in any of hte branches of government - they've dominated our country for 100 years. Are we better off? Are things stellar? Are we avoiding turmoil and troubles?

I want to give another party the chance to lead - I don't really care if people think "it's a wasted vote" - I'm very tired of the century-old lame tee-tee-totter crap that goes on in politics. I'm VERY tired of it and many other people are thinking the way I am about it.
Click to expand...

The way things are going with the Tea Party, its going to take them too long to establish themselves as powerful as the Dems and Reps. In the meantime, its going to be splitting the GOP's vote, and prevent them from having a majority in either house of Congress (if we stipulate the Tea Party becomes a third party), and until the Tea Party either replaces or overpowers the GOP, our government will be completely hung. If the conservatives don't get their act together fast enough, the power is going to go back to the Democrats, and they'll hold it for sometiem until the cons do have everything figured out.
 
repeter said:
The way things are going with the Tea Party, its going to take them too long to establish themselves as powerful as the Dems and Reps. In the meantime, its going to be splitting the GOP's vote, and prevent them from having a majority in either house of Congress (if we stipulate the Tea Party becomes a third party), and until the Tea Party either replaces or overpowers the GOP, our government will be completely hung. If the conservatives don't get their act together fast enough, the power is going to go back to the Democrats, and they'll hold it for sometiem until the cons do have everything figured out.
Click to expand...

First off, it would appear that they need to disengage themselves from the R grasp. Then, they need a national HQ - and build from there.
 
disneydude said:
Really? Who in the potential Republican crowd is more popular among the base of the Republican party than Sarah Palin?

True...there may be those running the party that would love to see her shrivel up and disappear, but there is no one in the GOP today that is more popular among Republicans than Sarah Palin.
Click to expand...

And you base that on what? Maybe conservatives like her, but any conservatives I know are not running the party, and none of us want to see her on the ticket. She's definitely popular, but she is not a viable candidate.
 
repeter said:
The way things are going with the Tea Party, its going to take them too long to establish themselves as powerful as the Dems and Reps. In the meantime, its going to be splitting the GOP's vote, and prevent them from having a majority in either house of Congress (if we stipulate the Tea Party becomes a third party), and until the Tea Party either replaces or overpowers the GOP, our government will be completely hung. If the conservatives don't get their act together fast enough, the power is going to go back to the Democrats, and they'll hold it for sometiem until the cons do have everything figured out.
Click to expand...

The tea party certainly didn't hurt the GOP in the midterms. :shrug:
 
BDBoop said:
First off, it would appear that they need to disengage themselves from the R grasp. Then, they need a national HQ - and build from there.
Click to expand...

Do we seriously want them to form a third party though? The way I see it, they're going to establish themselves as the conservative side of Republicans, and the rest of the Republicans get split up between GOP and Tea Party...I think if the Tea Party catered to a more moderate voter base, things would be better; a new independent party so to speak.
 
StandUpChuck said:
The tea party certainly didn't hurt the GOP in the midterms. :shrug:
Click to expand...

If they stay as part of the GOP. If they split into a third party, which is bound to happen from voter frustration and anger against the government. We'll know if they're going to become a third party in 6 years for sure. By then, the Tea Party will either die off or become immensely powerful.
 
StandUpChuck said:
And you base that on what? Maybe conservatives like her, but any conservatives I know are not running the party, and none of us want to see her on the ticket. She's definitely popular, but she is not a viable candidate.
Click to expand...

Agree. She has definitely become a better speaker and "interviewee" than when she first came into the public eye, but she is not going to be the candidate for anything. Good organizer and energizer. Waaay too polarizing to be on a ballot.

From when it first appeared, I sort of viewed this thread as a "Troll Poll". Pretty much all the Left votes for Palin and drops in an insult. All on the Right agree she would be a bad idea. Go figure....;)


.
 
Let me just clarify a few things about Palin. CNN did some kind of polling on election night in Kentucky, South Carolina, Texas, Mississippi, Iowa, and Ohio all of which are key Republican states (Ohio specifically now) and with polling in every single state Palin came out in top. She is seen by many as the anti-establishment candidate and in general right now, most Republicans hate their own party and are in love with the Tea Party Movement as a subset they see that could shift the rudimentary fundamentals of the party, essentially making no room whatsoever for any kind of moderation and making George W. Bush and his father especially look like liberals by comparison.

Palin embodies what this movement means now, she has the shiny sheen a candidate needs and democrats will keep their mouths shut about her because in reality the GOP is trying to edge her out in the first place because they are feeling this shift/trend. Another great example is what happened in Kentucky or Alaska with the Republican candidates for senate. McConnell for example does not care for Rand Paul, nor endorsed him at all. Palin however did.

Democrats will wait until she is actually the candidate, pull into the giant volumes of ****-ups and stupid **** that Palin has said or done, and destroy her for the inevitable landslide victory by Obama.
 
The way things are going with the Tea Party, its going to take them too long to establish themselves as powerful as the Dems and Reps.
Click to expand...

There is no Tea Party. Never was and that is the problem. There is a tea party movement that is a wing of the Republican Party. The difference is significant and important beyond two simple capital letters. They had the opportunity to build for 2012 but decided to stay as Republicans.
 
Last edited:
As a centrist Republican, I can see the benefits of a Palin candidacy; mostly in that she would get landslided which would ultimately push the Republican party more towards the center. That said, I would most prefer this not be the route we take. There are far better candidates than Sarah Palin and to nominate her would not mean good things for the GOP electorally.
 
librep said:
As a centrist Republican, I can see the benefits of a Palin candidacy; mostly in that she would get landslided which would ultimately push the Republican party more towards the center. That said, I would most prefer this not be the route we take. There are far better candidates than Sarah Palin and to nominate her would not mean good things for the GOP electorally.
Click to expand...

See man you just keep giving more good reasons to get her up in the election. I NEED to campaign for her in the primaries.
 
viable GOP contenders for President and VP

1) Pawlenty
2) Christie
3) Jindal
4) Portman
5) Romney
6) Mitch Daniels
7) Bob McDonnell
 
JohnWOlin said:
See man you just keep giving more good reasons to get her up in the election. I NEED to campaign for her in the primaries.
Click to expand...

The other side of this argument is that you can not over estimate the rationality of the American people in regards to who they'll put in office. I believe Palin would lose badly, but there will always exist the outside chance that she doesn't and we are faced with the reality of her Presidency. Scary...
 
librep said:
The other side of this argument is that you can not over estimate the rationality of the American people in regards to who they'll put in office. I believe Palin would lose badly, but there will always exist the outside chance that she doesn't and we are faced with the reality of her Presidency. Scary...
Click to expand...

yeah, the Obama phenomenom
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah, the Obama phenomenom
Click to expand...

Here is the difference between Obama and her. She governed a state with a population of less than a million. Obama was a senator from a state where his area alone was nearly 4 million. He embodies the American dream and is more educated than any president we have had since I have been alive (other than Bush Sr I would reckon). Most of the people on this board probably have a FAR better education than her.

You are high if you think there is any kind of comparison between some cheerleader and a guy actually trying to get **** done.

Anyways librep I thought of that to, but I'm willing to take my chances. I think America could handle 2 years of her (she will fall out somehow within her 4 she HAS TO) if elected.
 
JohnWOlin said:
Here is the difference between Obama and her. She governed a state with a population of less than a million. Obama was a senator from a state where his area alone was nearly 4 million. He embodies the American dream and is more educated than any president we have had since I have been alive (other than Bush Sr I would reckon). Most of the people on this board probably have a FAR better education than her.

You are high if you think there is any kind of comparison between some cheerleader and a guy actually trying to get **** done.

Anyways librep I thought of that to, but I'm willing to take my chances. I think America could handle 2 years of her (she will fall out somehow within her 4 she HAS TO) if elected.
Click to expand...

How dare you confuse the opposition with actual facts and the record. What is this place coming to when blind bias can be so easily defeated?
 
JohnWOlin said:
Here is the difference between Obama and her. She governed a state with a population of less than a million. Obama was a senator from a state where his area alone was nearly 4 million. He embodies the American dream and is more educated than any president we have had since I have been alive (other than Bush Sr I would reckon). Most of the people on this board probably have a FAR better education than her.

You are high if you think there is any kind of comparison between some cheerleader and a guy actually trying to get **** done.

Anyways librep I thought of that to, but I'm willing to take my chances. I think America could handle 2 years of her (she will fall out somehow within her 4 she HAS TO) if elected.
Click to expand...

she governed, he did not. and i find it funny that libs are so big into egalitarianism except when it comes to education (of course if bush got into Yale because white preppies were cut breaks that's bad but if Obama got into harvard law with grades that no white man was able to gain admission with that is great because Obama was "an oppressed minority")

Truman didn't have a college degree. Reagan was hardly a Columbia Phi Beta Kappa. Those are two of the best presidents in the modern era.

Obama is not more educated than Clinton who was a Rhodes Scholar holding a Yale Law Degree
Obama was not better educated that Jerry Ford who was a top student (and all american) at michigan and then a top student at Yale Law School or Nixon who was top of his class at Whittier (He was accepted at Yale but Whittier was more affordable) and then graduated at the top of his class at Duke law or even W who had degrees from Yale and Harvard B school.
 
JohnWOlin said:
Here is the difference between Obama and her. She governed a state with a population of less than a million. Obama was a senator from a state where his area alone was nearly 4 million. He embodies the American dream and is more educated than any president we have had since I have been alive (other than Bush Sr I would reckon). Most of the people on this board probably have a FAR better education than her.

You are high if you think there is any kind of comparison between some cheerleader and a guy actually trying to get **** done.

Anyways librep I thought of that to, but I'm willing to take my chances. I think America could handle 2 years of her (she will fall out somehow within her 4 she HAS TO) if elected.
Click to expand...

You are high if you think that Obama actually had a resume in 2008 that made him the most qualified man in the country to be president or more qualified than say Hillary Clinton or John McCain
 
TurtleDude said:
viable GOP contenders for President and VP

1) Pawlenty
2) Christie
3) Jindal
4) Portman
5) Romney
6) Mitch Daniels
7) Bob McDonnell
Click to expand...

I gotta say, I love Tim Pawlenty and Bobby Jindal. Those guys get things done. I'd vote for them over Obama, just to see if they could do it (and their track record is behind them for that).
 
TurtleDude said:
she governed, he did not. and i find it funny that libs are so big into egalitarianism except when it comes to education (of course if bush got into Yale because white preppies were cut breaks that's bad but if Obama got into harvard law with grades that no white man was able to gain admission with that is great because Obama was "an oppressed minority")

Truman didn't have a college degree. Reagan was hardly a Columbia Phi Beta Kappa. Those are two of the best presidents in the modern era.

Obama is not more educated than Clinton who was a Rhodes Scholar holding a Yale Law Degree
Obama was not better educated that Jerry Ford who was a top student (and all american) at michigan and then a top student at Yale Law School or Nixon who was top of his class at Whittier (He was accepted at Yale but Whittier was more affordable) and then graduated at the top of his class at Duke law or even W who had degrees from Yale and Harvard B school.
Click to expand...

I said people in my lifetime, not my grandmothers.
 
repeter said:
I gotta say, I love Tim Pawlenty and Bobby Jindal. Those guys get things done. I'd vote for them over Obama, just to see if they could do it (and their track record is behind them for that).
Click to expand...

I'm mixed on Pawlenty. He did balance the state budget without raising taxes (though some of his methods, read unallotment and 'fees', for doing so were questionable), but it's projected that the state is going to experience yet another budget shortfall. MinnesotaCare was good, but cutting funding from health and human services was probably not a great move considering that roughly 35,000 people could potentially lose their GMAC coverage. Overall, he is probably better than some of the other options that have been mentioned.
 
JohnWOlin said:
I said people in my lifetime, not my grandmothers.
Click to expand...

sorry, I didn't know I was dealing with a college kid. My apologies. I didn't see your birthdate on your profile
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom