Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
FLASH! Charlie Gibson Interviews Palin
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Blue_Lagoon wrote: »I had an interesting discussion with a born again Republican, who would make the for profit prophet Carl Rove praise the Oval Office. I asked if we could focus upon and consider Palin's qualifications to be VP, and President, should 72 year old McCain kick the bucket. When I brought up Palin's obvious naivete regarding foreign relations (2002 Bush Doctrine, or any doctrine that pertains to international relations), I got "But Obama..."
I then tried to get them back on task, saying that we were discussing Palin's qualifications, not Obama's. When I asked if her isolation in the very small population Arctic state might be a factor to her being away from the crossroads of international politics, I once again got the response, "Obama does not..."
For some reason, this Palin advocate could not address their candidate's extraordinary lack of foreign relations experience without attacking Obama's lack of this or that. Why is that? Could it be that political campaigning demands that people, who may have otherwise active minds, suspend their judgment to where they cannot criticize their holier-than-thou candidate? That they have to raise them up above us all to super human heights to justify their filling of the two most powerful offices in the most powerful country in the world? Psychology has a concept for this kind of behaviour that deals with inconsistencies between the make believe qualified candidate and the real unqualified candidate (be they Obama or Palin, which are both unqualifed). It is called cognitive dissonance. It occurs after making a foolish choice, no matter the choice, which results in the person grasping at straws, per se, that will support their foolish decision, rather than to face the facts that they made a poor choice.
I see cognitive dissonance in both party platforms, that's way I think this 2008 US presidential election is a complete farce that focuses more on smearing the opposing candidate with lipstick or whatever. Winning the election for their newly made gods, be they Republican or Democrat, is more important than addressing the important issues of recession, rising unemployment, bank failures, a million or more housing foreclosures, 20% of the population without health care insurance, and two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where many innocent women and children are being killed on a daily basis.
Good post there, the campaign seems to have turned into a reactionary rather than pro active election. EG. Biden being picked to address Obamas perceived foreign policy inexperience and Palin to seize on disaffected Hilary voters.
The Republicans have brought questions on foreign policy and Palin on themselves. They made it a massive campaign issue so they should have seen this one coming.
Palin seemed an inspired choice at first but the more we hear about her the more I wonder, this thread being a perfect example. Obama gets accused of having little experience, then Palin gets selected!
I have seen no defending or advocating of Palin here, just whataboutery, which says alot!
The Iraq and Ireland lies remind me of Hilarys gaff over Iraq.
Good thread bye the way, I've learned McCain isn't as experienced as I had thought as 27 years was in the military. Obviously as there's a 25 year gap he will be more experienced than Obama.
The weakness of the McCain/Palin ticket seems to be economics. He has admitted it's not his forte and she seems to have done a decent job taking money from Washington and the Oil Companies.
Anyway after 8 years of Bush, a little socialism may not be a bad idea to counter balance that!
PS. Should we not be comparing her to Biden?Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Good post there, the campaign seems to have turned into a reactionary rather than pro active election. EG. Biden being picked to address Obamas perceived foreign policy inexperience and Palin to seize on disaffected Hilary voters.
The Republicans have brought questions on foreign policy and Palin on themselves. They made it a massive campaign issue so they should have seen this one coming.
Palin seemed an inspired choice at first but the more we hear about her the more I wonder, this thread being a perfect example. Obama gets accused of having little experience, then Palin gets selected!
I have seen no defending or advocating of Palin here, just whataboutery, which says alot!
The Iraq and Ireland lies remind me of Hilarys gaff over Iraq.
Good thread bye the way, I've learned McCain isn't as experienced as I had thought as 27 years was in the military. Obviously as there's a 25 year gap he will be more experienced than Obama.
The weakness of the McCain/Palin ticket seems to be economics. He has admitted it's not his forte and she seems to have done a decent job taking money from Washington and the Oil Companies.
Anyway after 8 years of Bush, a little socialism may not be a bad idea to counter balance that!
PS. Should we not be comparing her to Biden?
I think what you really have overall are four pretty ordinary candidates pretending to be a lot better than they are. Added to this mix is the self-righteousness and monopoly of truth of both sides, as in some of the arguments here and the shadow of one man, GW Bush.
Without the dismal 8 years of Bush who knows who if any of these candidates would currently be campaigning for the Presidency.
Where you stand on this as far as I can see comes down to how the candidate suits your politics or is not Bush, not necessarily whether they'd be any good or not. Many arguments can be made to justify why either one is better than the other.
I think it can be built any way you want , Obama's "fantastic" policies and visions. McCain's "military" experience, Palin's madness and/or lies and Biden's , em invisibility. Ultimately people side with the one they like.
The Dems are trying to present themselves as "not" the GOP and offering all manner of things which would improve people's lives whereas the GOP seem to be hell-bent on winning an election that will then allow them to implement policies. At the moment they appear to be a lot better at it.
Considering the worsening finacical problems in the US and the now even-more extended US debt how many of these policies will see the light of day. For now all they are are promises.
McCain offers to bring the country together. That's part of his pitch. Easier to achieve and in my view more necessary than some of the lofty ideals that Obama has. Even the debate here on the election demonstrates how poorly people view the "other" side.
As McMillan commented "It's events dear boy, events" that affect things and judging by the continuing financial problems there are likely to be more of those events. Whoever wins is likely to have to deal with that.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement