|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:13 pm
Which is would be best Sarah Palin or Barrack Obama for president? When I look ook back at the history of both of them Sarah Palin has the most experience.
Palin was mayor for 2 years.This means she has had experience as a leader. A school secretary and science teacher / track coach. She knows how the school system works. She has been to a variety of colleges (attending five different colleges in a six year span of time). This just supports the fact that she has gotten a education and a variety if I may add. She also has had much experience because of her being on the Wasilla city Council, being mayor for two terms, she was also a governor for two terms until people began fining her for stupid things like wearing her husbands snow mobile team jacket.
Barrack Obama has gone to Occidental College and Columbia college but these schools are known for their liberal teachings. The only things he has done is become a senator and and state legistlator.
Speak on who you think is better and why you think I'm wrong or right.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:27 pm
It's pretty obvious that Palin has more executive experience than Obama. ^_^;; This was an ongoing argument if I remember correctly!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:30 pm
It's kinda push on that. Obama was at state level government for 7 years, Palin at local and state for 13 years (she was not a governor for two terms, she was a governor for about two and a half years). IMHO, neither was really up to the task of being president, but Sarah Palin was running for Vice President, not president. Given Adams description of the role, I think she was up to that task more than adequately. As to who would have made the better President, again, neither. Both were too inexperienced for the job. McCain was eminently qualified and would have made a great president, possibly one of the greatest in our history. Palin may or may not try to run in 2012, but it would be a mistake. She should leave the job of 2012 to Romney, and maybe consider a second go at the VP slot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:36 pm
Lord Bitememan It's kinda push on that. Obama was at state level government for 7 years, Palin at local and state for 13 years (she was not a governor for two terms, she was a governor for about two and a half years). IMHO, neither was really up to the task of being president, but Sarah Palin was running for Vice President, not president. Given Adams description of the role, I think she was up to that task more than adequately. As to who would have made the better President, again, neither. Both were too inexperienced for the job. McCain was eminently qualified and would have made a great president, possibly one of the greatest in our history. Palin may or may not try to run in 2012, but it would be a mistake. She should leave the job of 2012 to Romney, and maybe consider a second go at the VP slot. I'd like to see her and Gingrich go for it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:38 pm
Rainbowfied Mouse It's pretty obvious that Palin has more executive experience than Obama. ^_^;; This was an ongoing argument if I remember correctly! Finally we agree on something that deals with Politics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:40 pm
Quote: I'd like to see her and Gingrich go for it Gingrich is too old and has been out of the action too long. If lobbeyist weren't a four letter word in Washington, I'd kinda like to see Haley Barbour go for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Vice Captain
|
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:40 pm
Drarksupersaiyan Rainbowfied Mouse It's pretty obvious that Palin has more executive experience than Obama. ^_^;; This was an ongoing argument if I remember correctly! Finally we agree on something that deals with Politics If we move on to less civil rights areas I'm sure we'd agree on more issues than one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:56 pm
Lord Bitememan Quote: I'd like to see her and Gingrich go for it Gingrich is too old and has been out of the action too long. If lobbeyist weren't a four letter word in Washington, I'd kinda like to see Haley Barbour go for it. Just cause someone is old doesnt mean they can't run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:08 pm
McCain was too centrist for me to consider him the best ideal Presidential candidate for the Republican Party back in '08.
In fact I would say it was because of his lack of Conservatism and his too centrist ideals is what lost him the election. Many went to third parties moreso this last election according to the votes nationwide. Sadly some also went for Obama just because he is black and wanted to see history in their lifetime. This too has been admitted by several thousands of Republicans who did not like McCain's centrist stances.
I was very active politically in this last campaign, and I admit, I did not like McCain and felt we would lose because he did not stand on Conservative principles. Seriously, he voted in favor of TARP. No conservative would vote for TARP. Even our last administration voted for TARP and I heavily wrote in to these idiots how badly they made the Party look stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 6:11 am
Quote: Many went to third parties moreso this last election according to the votes nationwide. That's actually factually inaccurate. The total share of the 3rd party vote in this past election was about 1.5%. In 2004 it was 1%. So, the 2008 numbers represent only a half percentage shift towards 3rd parties. Now, in 2000 the share was 3.74%, more than twice the 2008 number and more than 3 times the 2004 number. The numbers this time were also numerically not comparable. A little more than 2 million votes were cast for third parties in this election out of a total of more than 131 million cast. In 2004 3rd parties received 1.2 million votes, but out of only 122 million cast. So, nine million more voters in 2008, and only about 800,000 more votes for 3rd parties. And compared to 2000, you had nearly 4 million votes cast for 3rd parties, out of only 105 million votes cast. So that was twice as many 3rd party voters in 2000, with 26 million fewer voters overall. One could say that the Constitution and Libertarian parties increased their overall vote in this last election over 2004, but it would also be true that both parties increased their share of the vote from 2000 to 2004 as well. So the argument that people were defecting en masse just doesn't historically hold up. The vote in this past election is actually within normal parameters for 3rd party votes, and if anything represents part of a trough in 3rd party participation that spiked in 1992 with Ross Perot's candidacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:08 pm
Experience doesn't really matter, Sarah Palin would have been an awesome person, and I wish that she ran for president. McCain was a sinner, and did not deserve to make our nation have more moral decay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:34 pm
Magus Kathrine Experience doesn't really matter, Sarah Palin would have been an awesome person, and I wish that she ran for president. McCain was a sinner, and did not deserve to make our nation have more moral decay. I disagree, experience is a key factor in running for and being a president. Even though I agree and only voted for McCain because he was the lesser of two evils we need to consider that theirs others with different religions here and that just because we think somethings wrong doesn't mean that they will agree too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:15 pm
The experience thing is kind of hard to argue. Palin didn't really have much experience in national politics. As bad as it sounds, I believe she actually lost us a lot of votes. I know many people who refused to vote for McCain not because of his political stance, but because he was old, and they didn't want to take the chance on him dying in office and making Palin our president. Kind of messed up, but at least people are thinking about things like that... I suppose that's better than the ignorant vote...
As for Obama, he had a lot of experience doing NOTHING at the national level. He knew how to keep himself in office, but never really effected a change. I mean, before this election, had anyone really heard of him? Not really. He didn't offend anyone, and he didn't champion any causes. In my opinion, Obama won based on the race card. I have no problem saying that, and I don't care who would call me racist redneck republican because of it. I don't have a problem with a minority president--I have a problem with a president who was only elected BECAUSE he is a minority. That's just messed up. I guess the Dems just couldn't lose here. They had a woman and a black man, and if their candidate lost, they could cry prejudice and an unfair world not willing to accept change... Gotta love politics... rolleyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 7:44 am
Drarksupersaiyan Magus Kathrine Experience doesn't really matter, Sarah Palin would have been an awesome person, and I wish that she ran for president. McCain was a sinner, and did not deserve to make our nation have more moral decay. I disagree, experience is a key factor in running for and being a president. Even though I agree and only voted for McCain because he was the lesser of two evils we need to consider that theirs others with different religions here and that just because we think somethings wrong doesn't mean that they will agree too. Our nation was founded on Christianity, and it should stay that way! Other religions are false, and what the first amendment means is that we have the freedom to choose our denomination, not our religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
