You can use whatever criteria you like, if that's what matters the most to you then go with it.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Why is there an assumption that McCain is making a joke of this? And why is it that his choice is pandering and solely made to get elected and Obama's not?
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
Why is there an assumption that McCain is making a joke of this? And why is it that his choice is pandering and solely made to get elected and Obama's not?
If we're lucky maybe Mark will throw up a toon for us.
Nope, not at all. Luckily, I can at least READ and understand resumes; especially those of whom I may have to vote for into the office of President and Vice President.
You, however, need to have it explained - as evident by YOUR question.
ETA: I always look forward to the toons Mark posts. Oftentimes, they are relevant.
Is it your opinion that Obama's choice of Biden as a VP has no basis in an attempt to secure the votes of working class white males (i.e., pandering) in several key states , a group among whom he fared quite poorly during the primaries?
Quote:
Nope, not at all. Luckily, I can at least READ and understand resumes
Tis runs counter to your inability to read and understand the polling dat presented by BamaDave several days ago.....Reading comprehension hasn't proven to be one of your strong points during your time here.
Being you're a cartoonist I would expect you would like them. Simple minds.
You said that McCain is making a joke, a mockery of this election. All I asked was why are you assuming that? Two posts later and you still haven't answered.
It's about her resume? She's the governor of a state. And you are?
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
ETA: I always look forward to the toons Mark posts. Oftentimes, they are relevant.
I somewhat resent the implication here. In fact, they're almost always relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy
Being you're a cartoonist I would expect you would like them. Simple minds.
That's pretty funny, coming from you in particular.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
You haven't been governor of a state so I don't think you are qualified.
3 posts - still no answer. But hey, thanks for playing.
Granted that Palin has barely 20-months of Governing under her belt - neither is she qualified. Her being Mayor of a town with less than 8,000 also doesnt' qualify as according to Wasilla, the duties of the Mayor are:
Quote:
1. Preside at council meetings. The mayor may take part in the discussion of matters before the council, but may not vote, except that the mayor may vote in the case of a tie;
2. Act as ceremonial head of the city;
Also, until you improve your ability to read and comprehend what HAS been already posted here as well as your inability to use Google to actually perform research - thank YOU for playing.
How about everyone shuts up and we play the guessing game of who may be Palin's daughter's baby daddy!
$10 says Obama!
I got $5 on McCain.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
* No name calling. So let's cut with the "Patty" and "Bobby" bullshit.
* Mods: Let's avoid taking sides unless we're being called out personally. (Unless I'm being called out. Then you're all on my side.)
* Everyone: Let's remember we're talking about politicians here. There's no such thing as a decision, on either side, that doesn't involve calculations, polling, focus groups and, yes, pandering. We're too old to be naive, even Nick.
Also, until you improve your ability to read and comprehend what HAS been already posted here as well as your inability to use Google to actually perform research - thank YOU for playing.
Look, Tina, personal attack (#2) Let her have it!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou Schuler
Everyone: Let's remember we're talking about politicians here. There's no such thing as a decision, on either side, that doesn't involve calculations, polling, focus groups and, yes, pandering. We're too old to be naive, even Nick.
My point. To say McCain is making a mockery of this election by his choice is a naive statement. Especially given his length of time serving as an elected official.
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
No comments on my comment that NO Alaskan politician has any experience in raising money for governmental service - real estate, income, or sales taxes. This results in a mind set that money is from the tooth fairy (or myth figure of your choice). All they know is how to spend. It is also a serious problem that the entire Alaskan economy is from resource extraction or the federal largesse. Almost every economy which has raised their funds that way has been a ruined economy, statewide, and world wide. Until forced to develop a healthy economy regions relying on resource based assets have almost never made the sacrifices to develop a modern economy.
I saw of couple of political scientists interviewed by Bill Moyers Friday night. The point they raised is that "undecided" voters are basically people who're immune to partisanship, and not particularly attuned to any issues. They're undecided because they're disengaged from all that.
When they start paying attention, they pick based on which candidate they like more. I've read elsewhere (maybe from articles written by those same two researchers) that this is stuff that doesn't even occur at a conscious level -- it's really the unconscious brain making the choice and the conscious brain coming up with a reason for it.
I don't know if voters ever make that choice based on which VP candidate they like more. But in case they do, Palin is probably a smart selection.
Voters instinctively don't like most of the major candidates, who're all self-selected for higher office. If Biden appealed to people on a gut level, he wouldn't have come in eighth in a seven-person primary. Obama probably chose him for lots of reasons, including both his foreign-policy knowledge and his potential appeal to blue-collar voters in key states like PA and Ohio. But we can rule out "charisma," because he reminds everyone of the loud uncle who harasses the referee at middle-school soccer games.
Palin, on the other hand, exudes charisma. People who see her are going to like her, and a lot of them will like her even if they don't agree with any of her positions.
Like I said, the open question is whether the late-deciding, low-information voters will pay enough attention to realize the young woman standing next to the old guy is running for VP and not (as Jon Stewart suggested) his third wife.
I think the biggest issue with those who follow politics (many of you in here) that works against McCain/Palin is that - of the most recent decisions - the choices of VP seem (on the surface, anyhow) to be in the Dem's favor.
In other words, McCain had 'experience' on his side. He had 'toughness' on his side. Now (and I emphasis 'now' because with politics it's so often what we feel now, rather than how we feel about the bigger picture) it feels like McCain made a mistake because Palin is extremely inexperienced, and does not have the 'tough' reputation that Biden has.
Biden knows his way around. Palin has not yet indicated that she knows much about Washington at all. Many of her answers involve mentions of her children and Alaska, which is fine and all, but she's going to have broaden her scope of interest.
So I think that, in contrast to Biden, she definitely comes across as a more obvious 'pandering' choice, and somewhat of a lightweight. This can (and has been) interpreted as a farcical decision on McCain's part - because of the contrast.
No comments on my comment that NO Alaskan politician has any experience in raising money for governmental service - real estate, income, or sales taxes. This results in a mind set that money is from the tooth fairy (or myth figure of your choice). All they know is how to spend. It is also a serious problem that the entire Alaskan economy is from resource extraction or the federal largesse. Almost every economy which has raised their funds that way has been a ruined economy, statewide, and world wide. Until forced to develop a healthy economy regions relying on resource based assets have almost never made the sacrifices to develop a modern economy.
We can all agree on this: McCain didn't pick her for her knowledge of macroeconomics or tax policy.
Excuse me...she is the govenor of Alaska, not some 'chick'.
Or should we blance things out and discuss Biden's 'piece of meat' and 'size of penis' status as relevant VP selection criteria?
I know exactly where you are coming from with your anger.
However, a slang term like 'chick' is hardly the same as any reference to her breasts or vagina.
In this particular case - not speaking just for John, but for several people that have referred to her with exactly that word, "chick" - it's a derogatory term aimed at her inexperience, disgust at her political extremes, along with a touch of a classic dismissal of anyone who has been involved in a beauty pageant.
"Chick" is loaded with sexism, if used in certain ways. That's for sure. But in regards to Palin I think it's more the equivalent of a "Check out what this asshole just did" for a male candidate.
Sexism is a factor, just like racism is a real issue with Obama. But actively looking for it actually plays right into the sexist roles: You would be defending her because she's a woman. (I have no idea what your political views are, so maybe you would have anyway.)
Perhaps look at it like this: there are many people who would have voted for Hillary over McCain/Palin. Yet these same people may dismiss her with terms like "chick".
A reference point: A large 40-year-old man comes toe-to-toe with a scrawny 25 year old. The scrawny guy says something threatening. The large man says, "Walk away while you still can, little boy". Now, the large man doesn't hate little boys. He also knows that the 25 year old is not actually a "little boy". But, in this context, the scrawny guy is out of his league.. and the large man dismisses his attempt at toughness with the insulting phrase. It does not mean there should be an uprising of 25 year olds to respond to this offense.
Linear Mode
