Originally posted by RobtardWeird assumption since McCain never exceeded in opinion polls until selecting her as VP, and only slipped until the final debate was over. (After the VP debate, but didn't slip until after his final debate)
Bachmann isn't making it to the end. Unless you mean Gingrich with Bachmann as VP.But the GOP learned what a bad idea it is to have a strong Presidential runner and have a retarded woman tagging along last election, so that's most likely a no too.
It could be 4chan spaz instead of spaz 4chan, like you said, but yeah. I'm pretty sure it'll be those two.
Gotta stop with the "Bachmann/Newt" talk. Seriously. It isn't happening. Newt--if we were to assume that he's a viable option for any hypothetical Republican political position--pretty much torpedoed himself when he went after Ryan's healthcare plan. Plus, it's not like he's anymore visible now than any of the other times he "ran for President." I didn't see any Reps tripping over themselves to make him Veep then. Bachmann's just straight up unelectable; there isn't anything that she brings to the table that Romney/Perry don't save maybe the fact that she's the most dedicated to the Tea Party cause. That's nice right now, but unless you think their voters are stupid, chances are they're going to realize that she isn't going to beat Obama one on one. They'll take Romney's issues ("Obamneycare" being one) over Bachmann. They'll damn sure take Perry over her.
I was never a fan of the Republicans tbh. Valorum and Palpatine ****ed the union beyond repair. I've never seen a great Republican leader as they always depend on the Jedi to fix their shit. Wait, what?
I'm not old enough to like politics but since my family is Republican and watches Fox News everyday I'm a democrat just because. To answer the OP's question I have no fvcking idea how they're a formidable power when a lot of prominent party members are fvcking idiots. Yeah I'm using a fallacy here but I can't back anything that Fox does.
Gingrich won't win. We're looking at a Romney or Perry candidate. Republicans won't pick Bachmann as the forerunner because she is too socially conservative and her husband's reparative therapy business will severely hurt them among mainstream voters. Romney's going to have his balls busted for the "corporations are people, too" line--something that should rightfully haunt him for the remainder of this election cycle--and the mainstream media seem to be taking to Perry even though he wasn't present at the Iowa straw poll. (This should tell you something about whenever the media supports a candidate.)
Perry, who has been described as "George Bush on steroids," is going to be exactly that: a corporatist who plays up his "cowboy" image and evangelical heritage to draw voters in. The fact that Americans are going to fall for this shit again is infuriating. Between doubleplus-Dubya and the N*gger-in-Chief, I'd rather have 'Bammy with another four years of shit so America remembers why left-wing college students' political opinions are laughed at rather than taken as policy.
Of course, this opens up the doors for another Ronald Reagan to take the reins from black Jimmy Carter, so we're f*cked six ways to the weekened anyway.
Originally posted by Darth Jello👆👆up:
The Republican Party outlived it's usefulness in 1909. It's proven itself to be less a political party and more of a Feudal/Fascist cult bent on the implementation of institutional poverty, classism, and autogenocide of elements it doesn't approve of at the expense of national and global stability. In their absence, the current democratic party could easily assume the mantle of a conservative party against any more liberal or social democratic party. They should be crushed and marginalized into a minor party and those members associated with the Tea Party and the Corporate elites should be punished severely.
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, if you look at the world press it is much worse even. not only did Obama get more stories, they were almost always favorable, and the few you did see about palin/McCain were focused on how terrible palin would be for the job. at least that was the impression I got
Sarah Palin, in that documentary, got to explain her answers to some of the questions.
Her answers weren't as stupid as the media made it out to be. For instance, in the media, they made fun of her for saying she could see Russia from her house.
That's not what she said: she said you could see Russia from Alaska: which is true.
Another instance was her getting mouthy with Katy Kuric and reading magazines. She said Katy was trying to trap her into admitting she read Liberal magazines like "Time" because they were arguing about abortion. Palin refused to play the game and just kept it at "I read a lot of them" instead of naming the magazines she read. The media flew off the handle at that and implied that she was an illiterate idiot.
It was nice to see the other side, for once, when it came to Palin. I still would not vote for her and I think she's an airhead...but she's not nearly as bad as the media made her out to be.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Her answers weren't as stupid as the media made it out to be. For instance, in the media, they made fun of her for saying she could see Russia from her house.
It was Tina Fey who said that. They happen to look at lot alike and plenty of people wanted to think the worst of Palin.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Another instance was her getting mouthy with Katy Kuric and reading magazines. She said Katy was trying to trap her into admitting she read Liberal magazines like "Time" because they were arguing about abortion. Palin refused to play the game and just kept it at "I read a lot of them" instead of naming the magazines she read. The media flew off the handle at that and implied that she was an illiterate idiot.
Seems like a terrible excuse. She thinks her base is so fanatical they won't vote for a person who reads Time?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Another instance was her getting mouthy with Katy Kuric and reading magazines. She said Katy was trying to trap her into admitting she read Liberal magazines like "Time" because they were arguing about abortion. Palin refused to play the game and just kept it at "I read a lot of them" instead of naming the magazines she read. The media flew off the handle at that and implied that she was an illiterate idiot.
the position that she is beligerant with people who might want to question her is better, in your mind, than she is just dumb?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It was Tina Fey who said that. They happen to look at lot alike and plenty of people wanted to think the worst of Palin.
You say it was Tina Fey who said that...but that didn't stop news outlets (CNN, MSNBC) from passing it off as fact and making fun of her for it.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Seems like a terrible excuse. She thinks her base is so fanatical they won't vote for a person who reads Time?
No, you missed the point of that convo: it was a chess match she was playing with Kouric that she lost horribly. That's not an excuse at all: it's why she failed to win that verbal chess match. She made the wrong moves out of frustration.
Originally posted by inimalist
the position that she is beligerant with people who might want to question her is better, in your mind, than she is just dumb?
Wrong: the position that she was irritated with an obviously agenda'ed reporter looking to play "gotcha games" with her versus her just being dumb is the dichotomy you're supposed to take away from that. Obama did not get the same treatment as Palin.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You say it was Tina Fey who said that...but that didn't stop news outlets (CNN, MSNBC) from passing it off as fact and making fun of her for it.
I know "because people wanted to think the worst of her". I very much doubt that a lot of it was deliberate deception. People really believed she said it, the media is made of people and is subject to similar faults. And then there's the level to which people will fight themselves to maintain such a belief, I found that during the campaign if you explained to (liberal) people that it was Fey who said it the response was mainly along the lines that Palin was dumb enough to believe it.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, you missed the point of that convo: it was a chess match she was playing with Kouric that she lost horribly. That's not an excuse at all: it's why she failed to win that verbal chess match. She made the wrong moves out of frustration.
She lost the chess match because she played stupidly.
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, word it how you want, it was a glaringly poor answer to an easy question.
You don't know the conversation. It wasn't a brief 1 minute interview.
I looked and could not find the entire interview but if you could view the entire conversation, you could see the Kuric was being a total b*tch and Palin was getting pissed.
The best answer would have been listing several magazines that filled the political spectrum. Palin is just not smart enough to have given that answer to avoid the trap. 🙂
Originally posted by inimalist
are you suggesting reporters don't ask Obama gotcha questions?
Are you suggesting that Obama got asked "Gotcha" questions just as often as Palin?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
She lost the chess match because she played stupidly.
But not in the way the media portrayed it...which was my point.
The Media's version: Palin is an idiot that can't name one single magazine. AKA, she's borderline illiterate.
The Truth: Palin was getting pissed and wanted to shut that portion of the conversation down.
Found the whole interview:
Found the clip that was abused like crazy:
Double edit- Nope, that's not it. I still can't find the full interview with the "gotcha" from Kouric (sp?)
Originally posted by dadudemon
The best answer would have been listing several magazines that filled the political spectrum. Palin is just not smart enough to have given that answer to avoid the trap. 🙂
in what way is this different from what I have said?
either she gets too pissed at tough/unfair questioning or she is dumb, both are terrible qualities in an elected leader, and both are worthy of criticism, though possibly not the specific criticism "Palin can't read", which afaik, even most comedians didn't go to.
not being able to come with an answer to an easy question, for whatever reason, is negative. Journalists are allowed to ask questions that deliberately try to make the politician look bad, a good measure of how a candidate will react under fire is how they can deal with such situations. I would say the "sound bite" media landscape makes it harder, and explains why so many politicians just fall back on phrases and memes when they get in trouble, but Palin's inability to do anything other than look like a yammering fool, imho, really takes some historical revisionism to look anything but unbecoming of a politician.
EDIT: I also hardly believe her justification, but that is irrelevant