America is NOT Center Right

[Cigar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKXnnkDZV2Q&feature=player_embedded

Believe it or not ... Republican Voters want these Ideas ... until Obama says he like it.

[hanger4]

Most if not all of those proposals the Pubs ain't opposed,

it's the way Obama is skirting Congress via Executive fiat.

[Mainecoons]

He's right. More than half the country are dependent left, hence the rapid social and economic decline. The fallacy of progressivism is being demonstrated on a very large scale on both sides of the Atlantic.

And the OP fool thinks his free ride is just going to keep right on going.

[Cigar]

Ladies and Gentlemen ... Exhibit A)

... on why The Republicans are on the outside looking into The Oval Office

http://www.dallassouthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Obama-in-Oval-Office.jpg

They're doing a bang up Job ... keep it up!

[Pete7469]

He's right. More than half the country are dependent left, hence the rapid social and economic decline. The fallacy of progressivism is being demonstrated on a very large scale on both sides of the Atlantic.

And the OP fool thinks his free ride is just going to keep right on going.

Oh I dunno Maine, I think it was a bad turnout in Nov. Most people still oppose statist liberalism, just as they oppose statist conservatives. I think all we have to do is come out for marijuana decriminalization and we'd crush the moonbats, since most of them would stay home and smoke dope on election days.

I still have to maintain my optimism. If "people" like the OP represented the actual majority of Americans, the cities would all be on fire.

[Mainecoons]

Not turning out says that they were OK with Obama. I stand by my statement.

[Chris]

He's right. More than half the country are dependent left, hence the rapid social and economic decline. The fallacy of progressivism is being demonstrated on a very large scale on both sides of the Atlantic.

And the OP fool thinks his free ride is just going to keep right on going.

If we go by presidential election results, the way the OPer does, then a 51% left is insignificant.

[Mainecoons]

I view this the same way I view the fact that very little of Islam actively speaks out and works against the terrorists. It is called passive acceptance.

[nic34]

He's right. More than half the country are dependent left, hence the rapid social and economic decline. The fallacy of progressivism is being demonstrated on a very large scale on both sides of the Atlantic.

And the OP fool thinks his free ride is just going to keep right on going.

....but, but, I still haven't gotten my free stuff.....

[Cigar]

If we go by presidential election results, the way the OPer does, then a 51% left is insignificant.

More like plenty ... to be President ... look up the history sport

[Mainecoons]

I'll bet you have and it is your idea of "ethically" earning money.

:rofl:

[Chris]

More like plenty ... to be President ... look up the history sport

Obama won, fact. Now provide the logic between that fact and any conclusion it means something.

[zelmo1234]

Not turning out says that they were OK with Obama. I stand by my statement.

You know that was my thought as well, but a friend of mine that refused to vote put it this way.

To elect a republican that is little different than the Dem that is in Office puts the blame for the economy back on the republicans.

If you let the dems destroy it they will get the blame, and he refuses to vote for rino republicans ever again, and I am now wondering if he is right!

[Cigar]

Obama won, fact. Now provide the logic between that fact and any conclusion it means something.

... it's enough ...

[Chris]

... it's enough ...

For the shallow, it probably is.

[Mainecoons]

You know that was my thought as well, but a friend of mine that refused to vote put it this way.

To elect a republican that is little different than the Dem that is in Office puts the blame for the economy back on the republicans.

If you let the dems destroy it they will get the blame, and he refuses to vote for rino republicans ever again, and I am now wondering if he is right!

I agree with that sentiment but I do not believe that more than a small minority of the no shows exercised this kind of thinking and choice. I believe the vast majority of them were just too lazy and passive to do anything about this disaster in the White House. Indeed, I believe that the new majority of Americans supports dependency, the welfare state, and money printing until the roof falls in.

[Cigar]

I agree with that sentiment but I do not believe that more than a small minority of the no shows exercised this kind of thinking and choice. I believe the vast majority of them were just too lazy and passive to do anything about this disaster in the White House. Indeed, I believe that the new majority of Americans supports dependency, the welfare state, and money printing until the roof falls in.

Great Campaign Slogan :grin: go with it!

[Pete7469]

You know that was my thought as well, but a friend of mine that refused to vote put it this way.

To elect a republican that is little different than the Dem that is in Office puts the blame for the economy back on the republicans.

If you let the dems destroy it they will get the blame, and he refuses to vote for rino republicans ever again, and I am now wondering if he is right!


Well said, you beat me too it. I figure a lot of people felt that way. I've even heard it said but I can't reference it, that had the Paulbot mobs voted Romney in the swing states, it would have been enough to close the gaps.

It didn't happen though, but perhaps the notion that when the economy shits the bed again, there won't be a republican face for the media to put on it.

[zelmo1234]

I agree with that sentiment but I do not believe that more than a small minority of the no shows exercised this kind of thinking and choice. I believe the vast majority of them were just too lazy and passive to do anything about this disaster in the White House. Indeed, I believe that the new majority of Americans supports dependency, the welfare state, and money printing until the roof falls in.

Apathy is not usually found on the right, it is why the dems do everything that they can to get out the vote.

Conservaitves will not vote for moderates, they are un motivated to do so. but give them a conservative canidate and they will turn out!

I know that I can't vote for my congressman again, even if he is a republican, I would rather have a dem if he is going to act like a dem

This is why the dems are trying so hard to get republicans to change there platform to a more liberal stance, they know that if they do, much of the base will stay home on election day.

I think it is fummy when people think that democrats are really trying to help the republicans.

[respectfulguest]

in the 2012 Presidential election President Obama received 6% less popular votes than in 2008 while Governor Romney had 1% more popular votes than Senator McCain in 2008, according to the OP's logic the center-right actually picked-up momentum in the 2012 elections.

I believe the GOP'S downfall was based on historical political actions Governor Romney was not a center-right candidate to begin with.

[nic34]

in the 2012 Presidential election President Obama received 6% less popular votes than in 2008 while Governor Romney had 1% more popular votes than Senator McCain in 2008, according to the OP's logic the center-right actually picked-up momentum in the 2012 elections.

I believe the GOP'S downfall was based on historical political actions Governor Romney was not a center-right candidate to begin with.

Why is this so suprising? Did you see who McCain's VP pick was????? :shocked:

[Chris]

in the 2012 Presidential election President Obama received 6% less popular votes than in 2008 while Governor Romney had 1% more popular votes than Senator McCain in 2008, according to the OP's logic the center-right actually picked-up momentum in the 2012 elections.

I believe the GOP'S downfall was based on historical political actions Governor Romney was not a center-right candidate to begin with.

Agree. To begin with Bush was left of center, and his clones, Obama and Romney left of him.

[Chris]

Why is this so suprising? Did you see who McCain's VP pick was????? :shocked:

She was right of center, McCain left.

[nic34]

What would you know, viewing the political spectrum from the right of William F. Buckley Jr.?

[Mainecoons]

Buckley?? That flaming liberal??? :rofl:

[Chris]

What would you know, viewing the political spectrum from the right of William F. Buckley Jr.?

Left/right is kind of flat earth, nic...

http://i.snag.gy/s8WFw.jpg

[respectfulguest]

Why is this so suprising? Did you see who McCain's VP pick was????? :shocked:

where in Post is "surprise" insinuated? and am aware of McCain's VP selection.. how does this relate my Post or OP?

[Chris]

Buckley?? That flaming liberal??? :rofl:

Actually Buckley was libertarian conservative. See http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/51801-1/William+F+Buckley+Jr.aspx

[Mister D]

Buckley really let NR decline, IMO. It was taken over by neocons in the 1990s and all dissenters were evetually purged. The latest victim was John Derbyshire who was one of the few reasons I still visited their website.

[Mainecoons]

Actually Buckley was libertarian conservative. See http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/51801-1/William+F+Buckley+Jr.aspx

I know, I was just adding to my reputation here as being to the right of Atilla The Hun. :grin:

Buckley's problem was that he was far too intelligent and sophisticated to be understood by the Cigars of the world.

:rofl:

[nic34]

Buckley denounced Ayn Rand, the Birchers, and George Wallace.

You need another like him to redefine the boundaries of conservatism again....

[Mister D]

Buckley denounced Ayn Rand, the Birchers, and George Wallace.

You need another like him to redefine the boundaries of conservatism again....

He helped establish the dominance of neocons. You're a deeply confused man, nic. Is Buckly too far right? Or do we need a guy like Buckley? The truth is that the major parties have grown increasingly close to one another ideologically. They dispute little more than details.

[Chris]

Buckley denounced Ayn Rand, the Birchers, and George Wallace.

You need another like him to redefine the boundaries of conservatism again....

Buckley and Rand disagreed, and mainly over religion. So?

[Pete7469]

I know, I was just adding to my reputation here as being to the right of Atilla The Hun. :grin:

Buckley's problem was that he was far too intelligent and sophisticated to be understood by the Cigars of the world.

:rofl:

Napoleon Dynamite was far too intelligent and sophisticated to be understood by the Cigars of the world.

[Mister D]

BTW, nic, Wallace was a Democrat.

[Pete7469]

Buckley and Rand disagreed, and mainly over religion. So?

That's the thing about conservatives, we are on the same side, but disagree on nuances. We're not robotic drones like the left is. We're individuals with a wide variety of values and beliefs. You want diversity? You'll find no place with a more diverse crowd than in the world of conservatism.

Failure to march in lock step and regurgitate the party line gets you ostracized in the world of liberalism. Just ask Juan Williams.

[Cigar]

Napoleon Dynamite was far too intelligent and sophisticated to be understood by the Cigars of the world.



http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Internet+Tough+Guy_b6df65_1012659.jpg

[nic34]

BTW, nic, Wallace was a Democrat.

Congratulations...you just learn that?

[Mister D]

Congratulations...you just learn that?

Nope. Just curious as to why he came up. No worries. I'm sure you don't know.

[hanger4]

I know it's off topic, but there was/is some talk of George Wallace's political leanings.

I grew up in the Wallace state and George Wallace was neither Conservative or Progressive

George Wallace was a party of one, well two including his wife.

Wallace was all about himself, everything he said,

everything he did was all about himself.

[Mister D]

I know it's off topic, but there was/is some talk of George Wallace's political leanings.

I grew up in the Wallace state and George Wallace was neither Conservative or Progressive

George Wallace was a party of one, well two including his wife.

Wallace was all about himself, everything he said,

everything he did was all about himself.

Sounds fairly typical of politicians now.

[nic34]

I know it's off topic, but there was/is some talk of George Wallace's political leanings.

I grew up in the Wallace state and George Wallace was neither Conservative or Progressive

George Wallace was a party of one, well two including his wife.

Wallace was all about himself, everything he said,

everything he did was all about himself.

All I posted was that Buckley did not agree with him... specifically his racism.

[Mister D]

All I posted was that Buckley did not agree with him... specifically his racism.

What about it?

[nic34]

What about it?

Guess you gotta go back up the thread and find out...

[Mister D]

Guess you gotta go back up the thread and find out...

Just as I thought. You don't know.

[nic34]

Just as I thought, you're lazy...

[hanger4]

All I posted was that Buckley did not agree with him... specifically his racism.

No need to feel paranoid,

I was just bestowing a wee bit

of my life's experiences.

[Alif Qadr]

Oh I dunno Maine, I think it was a bad turnout in Nov. Most people still oppose statist liberalism, just as they oppose statist conservatives. I think all we have to do is come out for marijuana decriminalization and we'd crush the moonbats, since most of them would stay home and smoke dope on election days.

I still have to maintain my optimism. If "people" like the OP represented the actual majority of Americans, the cities would all be on fire.



:smiley_ROFLMAO:

[Alif Qadr]

You know that was my thought as well, but a friend of mine that refused to vote put it this way.

To elect a republican that is little different than the Dem that is in Office puts the blame for the economy back on the republicans.

If you let the dems destroy it they will get the blame, and he refuses to vote for rino republicans ever again, and I am now wondering if he is right!

Good point zelmo

[Alif Qadr]

I agree with that sentiment but I do not believe that more than a small minority of the no shows exercised this kind of thinking and choice. I believe the vast majority of them were just too lazy and passive to do anything about this disaster in the White House. Indeed, I believe that the new majority of Americans supports dependency, the welfare state, and money printing until the roof falls in.

I hope that you are incorrect with you latter assertion that people have grown to worship dependency on the state but I have a suspicion that you are correct. It was a long process but the love of Marxism is in blossom in the U.S. of A.

[Alif Qadr]

I know, I was just adding to my reputation here as being to the right of Atilla The Hun. :grin:

Buckley's problem was that he was far too intelligent and sophisticated to be understood by the Cigars of the world.

:rofl:
Maine, that may be my problem as well. I am at a complete loss with most Liberal/Progressives, they leave me flabbergasted at times.

[Alif Qadr]

Napoleon Dynamite was far too intelligent and sophisticated to be understood by the Cigars of the world.


:smiley_ROFLMAO::smiley_ROFLMAO::smiley_ROFLMAO:

[Alif Qadr]

btw, nic, wallace was a democrat.

ouchie ouchie!!

[Alif Qadr]

All I posted was that Buckley did not agree with him... specifically his racism.

Does disagreement with bigotry make one a Liberal/Progressive or Democrat? I would say it would make one a Democrat or a Liberal/Progressive, going by the their track records but that is just me.

[Alif Qadr]

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Internet+Tough+Guy_b6df65_1012659.jpg
Childish banter and rhetoric gets you no where, Cigar.

[Pete7469]

Childish banter and rhetoric gets you no where, Cigar.

Well I suppose now we know he's trying to compensate for his short comings by being such an asshole all the time.

[Chris]

I hope that you are incorrect with you latter assertion that people have grown to worship dependency on the state but I have a suspicion that you are correct. It was a long process but the love of Marxism is in blossom in the U.S. of A.

Discussed some in The Liberal God Delusion (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/9878-The-Liberal-God-Delusion). I don't think its worship of dependency so much as worship of the state. Hegelian.

[Dr. Who]

She was right of center, McCain left.

IMO, I think the Republicans did not lose the last two elections necessarily based on the political preference of the people, but because they have run candidates who either lacked the ability to debate intelligently (McCain) or they allowed themselves to get caught making prejudicial statements in public(Romney). After G.W. Bush, people were looking for a candidate who did not give the appearance of a yahoo who would be controlled by the back room boys.

Palin was an extremely poor choice as a running mate because she is incapable of considering the impact of her remarks on the average American. She became the target of the media. If the Republicans want a chance at the Presidency, they need to run someone who doesn't come across as a future embarrassment. The voting public is becoming more sophisticated. They don't want a President who lacks credibility.

[Chris]

IMO, I think the Republicans did not lose the last two elections necessarily based on the political preference of the people, but because they have run candidates who either lacked the ability to debate intelligently (McCain) or they allowed themselves to get caught making prejudicial statements in public(Romney). After G.W. Bush, people were looking for a candidate who did not give the appearance of a yahoo who would be controlled by the back room boys.

Palin was an extremely poor choice as a running mate because she is incapable of considering the impact of her remarks on the average American. She became the target of the media. If the Republicans want a chance at the Presidency, they need to run someone who doesn't come across as a future embarrassment. The voting public is becoming more sophisticated. They don't want a President who lacks credibility.

Agree Reps have fielded poor candidates. I think it's the popularity contest we call primaries. We need candidates coming out of smoke-filled rooms.

Disagree on Palin. She spoke to the hearts and minds of many of us. But the media butchered her and deserves tar and feathering.

But then what have Dems offers, Obama, not much to shake a stick at.

What we need is NOTA on the ballot.

[Dr. Who]

That's the thing about conservatives, we are on the same side, but disagree on nuances. We're not robotic drones like the left is. We're individuals with a wide variety of values and beliefs. You want diversity? You'll find no place with a more diverse crowd than in the world of conservatism.

Failure to march in lock step and regurgitate the party line gets you ostracized in the world of liberalism. Just ask Juan Williams.



Why do you assume that liberals are robotic drones? Not all liberals agree on everything. We don't have meetings to get our beliefs all on the same page. Rebublicans also have varied political beliefs. On both sides there are many who are closer to the middle and then percentages who fall incrementally to each extreme. I think there may be a bigger right swing than left swing, however, when it comes to elections the people in the US only have two choices. In other parts of the world, more political parties are tolerated. It's in some way less stable, but more representative of the electorate.

[Dr. Who]

Agree Reps have fielded poor candidates. I think it's the popularity contest we call primaries. We need candidates coming out of smoke-filled rooms.

Disagree on Palin. She spoke to the hearts and minds of many of us. But the media butchered her and deserves tar and feathering.

But then what have Dems offers, Obama, not much to shake a stick at.

What we need is NOTA on the ballot.
You can't win an election with a candidate that alienates people, and media or not, that is what Palin did. Many may have been able to accept McCain as being a man of the people, but Palin knocked him out of the race because of her extreme views. That's OK if you subscribe to her point of view, but let's face it, even among Republicans she is viewed too far to the right and generally unsophisicated. She was viewed as a potential embarrassment.

[Chris]

You can't win an election with a candidate that alienates people, and media or not, that is what Palin did. Many may have been able to accept McCain as being a man of the people, but Palin knocked him out of the race because of her extreme views. That's OK if you subscribe to her point of view, but let's face it, even among Republicans she is viewed too far to the right and generally unsophisicated. She was viewed as a potential embarrassment.

Obama won by divisive alienating. It's how elections are won, find the few key states or areas, divide them, attack your opponent, hope everyone vote to least of two evils.

Obama is sophisticated, but who needs sophistry?

You haven't said anything about Palin other than what the media said.

[Dr. Who]

Obama won by divisive alienating. It's how elections are won, find the few key states or areas, divide them, attack your opponent, hope everyone vote to least of two evils.

Obama is sophisticated, but who needs sophistry?

You haven't said anything about Palin other than what the media said.

13 Social Studies Facts Sarah Palin Got Wrong By Kel Varnsen (http://www.ranker.com/profile-of/kel-varnsen) Ranker
Staff [ 63 more lists (http://www.ranker.com/profile-of/kel-varnsen) ] Infamous for her verbal slips and gaffes, Sarah Palin - author, pundit, governor, candidate, grizzled mother or what have you - has often been in trouble with the press for massaging the truth. Of course, there are the outright accusations that Palin lies, including Andrew Sullivan's ongoing, dogged and not-uncreepy investigation into her claims to be Trig Palin's mother. Those are interesting, sure, but they get all the press.

Far more intriguing are just the Sarah Palin goofs and mistakes (http://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-most-ridiculous-sarah-palin-quotes-ever/pt_tesla). The small things that most Americans really should know that she seems to consistently get wrong. It's like she skipped out on all her social studies classes at Wasilla High. Possibly to knock back PBRs with Todd and talk about which girls are putting out. We can't be sure.

What follows is an incomplete but hopefully still compelling account of Sarah Palin's errors when it comes to history, geography and government. And probably grammar.



Tags: politics & history, (http://www.ranker.com/list-of/politics--and--history) videos, (http://www.ranker.com/tags/video-lists) gaffes, (http://www.ranker.com/tags/gaffes) sarah palin
Rank (http://thepoliticalforums.com/?format=BLOG&sortby=rank&sortdir=desc) Name (http://thepoliticalforums.com/?format=BLOG&sortby=name&sortdir=asc)

1
Paul Revere Warned the British


During her 2011 "bus tour" across America, Palin stopped in the city of Boston, where she took in some of the local historical sites. Included in the tour was a stop at Paul Revere's shack. While there, Sarah explained to local TV cameras the significance of Revere's famous 1775 "midnight ride," undertaken just before the battles at Lexington and Concord. Unfortunately...she sort of got the entire thing backwards.

According to Palin, Revere rode on horseback and "warned, uh, the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells..." As most American school kids are probably already aware, Revere actually rode from Boston to Lexington warning the COLONISTS that the British Army was marching in their direction. (He specifically was hoping to give advance notice of the Army's movements to John hancock and Samuel Adams, who would have likely been arrested by the Redcoats upon their arrival.)

But otherwise...NAILED IT!

Katie Couric: "What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?"
Sarah Palin: "Well, let's see. There's --of course --in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are -- those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know -- going through the history of America, there would be others but--"
Couric: "Can you think of any?"
Palin: "Well, I could think of -- of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a Vice President, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today." --unable to name any Supreme Court decisions other than Roe v. Wade, CBS News interview, Oct. 1, 2008 (Watch video clip (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalinvideos/youtube/palin-supreme.htm))

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palinisms_3.htm

Just but a few. She was often incoherent.

[Dr. Who]

Obama won by divisive alienating. It's how elections are won, find the few key states or areas, divide them, attack your opponent, hope everyone vote to least of two evils.

Obama is sophisticated, but who needs sophistry?


You haven't said anything about Palin other than what the media said.
Not being an Alaskan, I am unable to know anything about Palin not mentioned in the media. However, if you are running for V.P. of the U.S.A. you must be mindful of what the media records for dissemination to the public.

[Pete7469]

Why do you assume that liberals are robotic drones?

It's not an assumption, they never question the results of their agenda, and they blame their failures on everyone else. They never hold each other accountable for anything, and will defend each other for the most horrific lapses and crimes, unless it's open opposition to "gay rights", entitlement reform, voter ID laws, or a war they're told to hate. Just ask Joe Lieberman.

Not all liberals agree on everything.

They damn sure don't dissent from each other on many things, and when they do, they're quick with a public apology, a photo op complete with ass kissing and even prayers, which the ACLU convienently has no objection to .

We don't have meetings to get our beliefs all on the same page.

So all the moonbat talking heads that litteraly regurgitate the same premises on every every event don't get their talking points from media matters? That's amazing because you can listen to a montague of sunday morning "journalists" parroting the the same insipid shit, while completely ignoring any issue that should embarrass a liberal with any integrity (as if there are any)

Rebublicans also have varied political beliefs.

And we don't purge each other over trivial issues like "gay rights" or protect each other from scrutiny over criminal behavior.

On both sides there are many who are closer to the middle and then percentages who fall incrementally to each extreme. I think there may be a bigger right swing than left swing, however, when it comes to elections the people in the US only have two choices. In other parts of the world, more political parties are tolerated. It's in some way less stable, but more representative of the electorate.

When it come to right vs. wrong, the left is always wrong.

[Chloe]

Not being an Alaskan, I am unable to know anything about Palin not mentioned in the media. However, if you are running for V.P. of the U.S.A. you must be mindful of what the media records for dissemination to the public.

Don't worry, i'm Alaskan and I don't know anything about her either other than what i've seen on TV :smiley:

[Pete7469]

Not being an Alaskan, I am unable to know anything about Palin not mentioned in the media. However, if you are running for V.P. of the U.S.A. you must be mindful of what the media records for dissemination to the public.

Unless you're a democrook, then you can run for president and have no worries about people concerning themselves with your past and exposing it. You can even cause the death of a woman and stay in the senate for 3 decades.

[Pete7469]

Don't worry, i'm Alaskan and I don't know anything about her either other than what i've seen on TV :smiley:

And that's sad Chloe. I thought more of you than someone who just believed what they saw on TV. You seemed more inquisitive than that.

[Chloe]

And that's sad Chloe. I thought more of you than someone who just believed what they saw on TV. You seemed more inquisitive than that.

I'm sorry but what do I need to know about her though? I know she ran for president and I know who her daughter is because of dancing with the stars. I don't watch enough news or talk shows to really see her a lot so basically I just see what is on TV sometimes about her. I don't have strong feelings either way about her other than that I don't agree with some of the things i've heard her say.

[Pete7469]

I'm sorry but what do I need to know about her though? I know she ran for president and I know who her daughter is because of dancing with the stars. I don't watch enough news or talk shows to really see her a lot so basically I just see what is on TV sometimes about her. I don't have strong feelings either way about her other than that I don't agree with some of the things i've heard her say.

She was selected as a VP candidate, she didn't pursue the office until she was asked too. She also comes from an average class of middle income earners, and probably shares more values with you than you would know about if all your information comes from TV.

At least you don't hate her, like so many on the left do. It's my oppinion that she's hated by the left because she's a threat to their agenda, and she's hated by the elitist pigs og the GOP, because she could undermine their power.

[Chris]

13 Social Studies Facts Sarah Palin Got Wrong By Kel Varnsen (http://www.ranker.com/profile-of/kel-varnsen) Ranker
Staff [ 63 more lists (http://www.ranker.com/profile-of/kel-varnsen) ] Infamous for her verbal slips and gaffes, Sarah Palin - author, pundit, governor, candidate, grizzled mother or what have you - has often been in trouble with the press for massaging the truth. Of course, there are the outright accusations that Palin lies, including Andrew Sullivan's ongoing, dogged and not-uncreepy investigation into her claims to be Trig Palin's mother. Those are interesting, sure, but they get all the press.

Far more intriguing are just the Sarah Palin goofs and mistakes (http://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-most-ridiculous-sarah-palin-quotes-ever/pt_tesla). The small things that most Americans really should know that she seems to consistently get wrong. It's like she skipped out on all her social studies classes at Wasilla High. Possibly to knock back PBRs with Todd and talk about which girls are putting out. We can't be sure.

What follows is an incomplete but hopefully still compelling account of Sarah Palin's errors when it comes to history, geography and government. And probably grammar.



Tags: politics & history, (http://www.ranker.com/list-of/politics--and--history) videos, (http://www.ranker.com/tags/video-lists) gaffes, (http://www.ranker.com/tags/gaffes) sarah palin
Rank (http://thepoliticalforums.com/?format=BLOG&sortby=rank&sortdir=desc) Name (http://thepoliticalforums.com/?format=BLOG&sortby=name&sortdir=asc)

1
Paul Revere Warned the British


During her 2011 "bus tour" across America, Palin stopped in the city of Boston, where she took in some of the local historical sites. Included in the tour was a stop at Paul Revere's shack. While there, Sarah explained to local TV cameras the significance of Revere's famous 1775 "midnight ride," undertaken just before the battles at Lexington and Concord. Unfortunately...she sort of got the entire thing backwards.

According to Palin, Revere rode on horseback and "warned, uh, the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells..." As most American school kids are probably already aware, Revere actually rode from Boston to Lexington warning the COLONISTS that the British Army was marching in their direction. (He specifically was hoping to give advance notice of the Army's movements to John hancock and Samuel Adams, who would have likely been arrested by the Redcoats upon their arrival.)

But otherwise...NAILED IT!

Katie Couric: "What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?"
Sarah Palin: "Well, let's see. There's --of course --in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are -- those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know -- going through the history of America, there would be others but--"
Couric: "Can you think of any?"
Palin: "Well, I could think of -- of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a Vice President, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today." --unable to name any Supreme Court decisions other than Roe v. Wade, CBS News interview, Oct. 1, 2008 (Watch video clip (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalinvideos/youtube/palin-supreme.htm))

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palinisms_3.htm

Just but a few. She was often incoherent.


Warmed over media mush, who. Still waiting for you to say something about her message, not the messenger.

[Chris]

Not being an Alaskan, I am unable to know anything about Palin not mentioned in the media. However, if you are running for V.P. of the U.S.A. you must be mindful of what the media records for dissemination to the public.

You have her words available, who, yet you choose other people's words.

[Chris]

Don't worry, i'm Alaskan and I don't know anything about her either other than what i've seen on TV :smiley:

You never heard her speak? That's somewhat surprising.

[Chloe]

You never heard her speak? That's somewhat surprising.

I have on TV, like on the news and things like that. But I don't go out of my way to listen to her or find her to listen to her.

[Chris]

I have on TV, like on the news and things like that. But I don't go out of my way to listen to her or find her to listen to her.

What did you think of what she said? Her themes tend toward less government, more liberty. That's why I like what she says. Speaks to what I believe in.

[Pete7469]

You can't win an election with a candidate that alienates people, and media or not, that is what Palin did. Many may have been able to accept McCain as being a man of the people, but Palin knocked him out of the race because of her extreme views. That's OK if you subscribe to her point of view, but let's face it, even among Republicans she is viewed too far to the right and generally unsophisicated. She was viewed as a potential embarrassment.

That's a steaming pile of fresh unrefined bullshit. McCain was trailing horribly in the polls before the convention, because so few conservatives could tolerate him. Palin bounced his numbers by double digits immediately, hence the media onslaught. Had McCain's handlers not restrained her, she would be a second term VP by now, working on becoming the first female president in 2016.

[Chloe]

What did you think of what she said? Her themes tend toward less government, more liberty. That's why I like what she says. Speaks to what I believe in.

She is a good speaker but from what i've heard her say we probably don't agree on most social issue things and environmental things.

[Pete7469]

She is a good speaker but from what i've heard her say we probably don't agree on most social issue things and environmental things.

That's funny, because the Palin family is well known for their recreation in the environment. You'd think that people who hunt and fish regularly would have maybe a little more concern for their own environment that some elitist pig DC resident who's never spent more than a few hours in a park would let alone lives in the Alaskan wilderness.

Have you considered the possibility that a lot of your environmental concerns are based on psuedoscientific political causes that have nothing to do with reality, let alone an honest concern about ecology?

[Chris]

She is a good speaker but from what i've heard her say we probably don't agree on most social issue things and environmental things.

One thing I like about her is what she says about social issues. I recall during the election her talking about same sex marriage. She said she was personally against, however, she also said politically it was none of government's business, that it was a matter for society to work out. Ditto other social issues. Do you disagree with that?

I don't recall what she's said on environmental issues, but I would guess you would disagree, politically, not personally. And that's cool.

[Chloe]

One thing I like about her is what she says about social issues. I recall during the election her talking about same sex marriage. She said she was personally against, however, she also said politically it was none of government's business, that it was a matter for society to work out. Ditto other social issues. Do you disagree with that?

I don't recall what she's said on environmental issues, but I would guess you would disagree, politically, not personally. And that's cool.

I don't know. I'm completely for same sex marriage and it requires the government to make that legal, whether it's state or federal government. So if you are against same sex marriage and you are for leaving government out of it you basically ensure that it won't ever be legal.

[Chloe]

That's funny, because the Palin family is well known for their recreation in the environment. You'd think that people who hunt and fish regularly would have maybe a little more concern for their own environment that some elitist pig DC resident who's never spent more than a few hours in a park would let alone lives in the Alaskan wilderness.

Have you considered the possibility that a lot of your environmental concerns are based on psuedoscientific political causes that have nothing to do with reality, let alone an honest concern about ecology?

When it comes to enjoying wilderness and recreation in the environment I prefer the take pictures, leave only footprints philosophy. Hunting bears, wolves, moose, elk, and so on is taking from that wilderness and i don't agree with that. It's not political for me it's just what I consider to be responsible and ethical.

[Chris]

I don't know. I'm completely for same sex marriage and it requires the government to make that legal, whether it's state or federal government. So if you are against same sex marriage and you are for leaving government out of it you basically ensure that it won't ever be legal.

Why's it require government? It's shouldn't be a legal matter at all.

To me we depend far too much on government to decide issues for us.

[Chloe]

Why's it require government? It's shouldn't be a legal matter at all.

To me we depend far too much on government to decide issues for us.

marriage between a man and a woman is recognized by government and is given special rights and perks. gay marriage as i stands right now is taboo unless you live in certain states that used government to make them equal under the law.

[Pete7469]

When it comes to enjoying wilderness and recreation in the environment I prefer the take pictures, leave only footprints philosophy. Hunting bears, wolves, moose, elk, and so on is taking from that wilderness and i don't agree with that. It's not political for me it's just what I consider to be responsible and ethical.

I can understand that sentiment, though I have no problem with trophy hunters who obey conservation laws. In fact populations of wild animals are more healthy when managed properly. I hunt for meat although I have one shoulder mounted buck trophy, because it was a significant event. Absent conservation efforts these animals would be subjected to ebbs and flows of food sources, predatory species, disease and climate fluctuations. I find it much more human and ethical to control populations in order to reduce the devistating effects of starvation and disease.

[Peter1469]

When it comes to enjoying wilderness and recreation in the environment I prefer the take pictures, leave only footprints philosophy. Hunting bears, wolves, moose, elk, and so on is taking from that wilderness and i don't agree with that. It's not political for me it's just what I consider to be responsible and ethical.

Me too. I only use my camera to shoot things in the wilderness.

[Chris]

marriage between a man and a woman is recognized by government and is given special rights and perks. gay marriage as i stands right now is taboo unless you live in certain states that used government to make them equal under the law.

OK, so government is the problem, not the solution. Basically those state's undid what government had done to limit marriage.

Privileges etc can be managed by contract in civil court or by arbitration.

[Chloe]

I can understand that sentiment, though I have no problem with trophy hunters who obey conservation laws. In fact populations of wild animals are more healthy when managed properly. I hunt for meat although I have one shoulder mounted buck trophy, because it was a significant event. Absent conservation efforts these animals would be subjected to ebbs and flows of food sources, predatory species, disease and climate fluctuations. I find it much more human and ethical to control populations in order to reduce the devistating effects of starvation and disease.

That brings us into another conversation though which is why is wildlife management necessary? The answer is because of unchecked human expansion and rampant habitat loss for wildlife. We create the situation where hunting is considered "necessary" in order to protect a species of animal due to overpopulation.

When animals have no home because it was destroyed they seek out a new home, and when their home is reduced from thousands of square miles of wilderness to hundreds of square miles of wilderness then the ecosystem is unbalanced. It's NOT the bear's fault or the deer's fault, it's OUR fault, but yet we think of ourselves as great and kind environmentalists and conservationists by us controlling the overpopulation that we created ourselves. It's not because they care, it's because they created the scenario. Eventually we will drive animals into smaller and smaller areas and will be left with only a handful of each species.

[Pete7469]

marriage between a man and a woman is recognized by government and is given special rights and perks. gay marriage as i stands right now is taboo unless you live in certain states that used government to make them equal under the law.

Then why can't some states honor the wishes of the majority of their populations and maintain the standards of marriage being a male/female institution? Gay marriage is really one of the stupidest issues that exists, and shouldn't even be an issue. They only bring it up to force their lifestyle into the political arena, because no one really gives a shit what they do otherwise.

[Chris]

Here's the thing to consider, Chloe, if nothing else, was government granted the power to define marriage? That's where Palin is coming from. Her personal opinion aside, yours, and mine, it comes down to whether government was ever granted this power by the people. I say no. Think so, find it in the Constitution. DOMA is unconstitutional.

[Chloe]

OK, so government is the problem, not the solution. Basically those state's undid what government had done to limit marriage.

Privileges etc can be managed by contract in civil court or by arbitration.

no, bigotry is the problem in my opinion. If all men are created equal as the declaration of independence says, since everybody likes to quote from that, then the fact that a gay couple can't share the term "marriage" with a straight couple, who all love each other the same, is in fact inequality and needs to be recognized as that. People like to push the term "civil union" for gay people. Why not call everything a civil union then? Straight and gay couples have civil unions, and abolish the word marriage. It only makes sense.

A gay couple's love is no less of a form of love than a straight couple's love, and if marriage is the way to legally show that love then both should be able to enjoy that.

[Pete7469]

Have you ever been on an airplane? Almost 90% of the earth is uninhabited. Human overpopulation is an econazi talking point that was worn out long ago. If humans didn't exist at all, species would eat each other into extinction far more frequently than we've ever displaced them.

I'm not sure how you can say " we think of ourselves as great and kind environmentalists and conservationists by us controlling the overpopulation that we created ourselves."

That sounds silly. Are we forcing animals to reproduce? No... we're culling the herds so that there is no over population. We're not creating any problems at all in animal populations, except perhaps the pigeon population, and that's because we've created a favorable habitat and food source, yet do nothing to control their numbers. in fact we attempt to control the cat population.

[Chloe]

Have you ever been on an airplane? Almost 90% of the earth is uninhabited. Human overpopulation is an econazi talking point that was worn out long ago. If humans didn't exist at all, species would eat each other into extinction far more frequently than we've ever displaced them.

I'm not sure how you can say " we think of ourselves as great and kind environmentalists and conservationists by us controlling the overpopulation that we created ourselves."

That sounds silly. Are we forcing animals to reproduce? No... we're culling the herds so that there is no over population. We're not creating any problems at all in animal populations, except perhaps the pigeon population, and that's because we've created a favorable habitat and food source, yet do nothing to control their numbers. in fact we attempt to control the cat population.

70% of the world is ocean which leaves 30% of the Earth for us to live on, and a good percentage of that 30% is uninhabitable. There isn't THAT much space out there for millions of species to survive along side with humans and all of our structures.

How can you deny that as we build cities, roads, neighborhoods, malls, schools, gas stations, factories, parking lots, marinas, farms, landfills, and all of the other space consuming things that only we humans build on this planet has a real affect on wildlife habitat? That makes no sense to me.

Think of it this way. Say you have 100 acres of untouched forest, and that forest has a population of five deer. If you cut down those 100 acres to build a neighborhood where do the deer go? They go to the next patch of woods, right? Well that patch of woods is also 100 acres and has a population of five deer as well, so now you have 10 deer in 100 acres...do you see the pattern? Now a hunter/conservationist comes along and says "for the good of the deer I will kill three!" It's nuts.

[Pete7469]

I'm talking about the land mass, obviously no one lives on the water Chloe...

I can easily deny that our cities, roads malls and everything else have a negative impact on wildlife, because the wildlife lives among everything that gets built. I don't know about your neighborhood, and I live in a rural area and have an abundance of wildlife, but in many very populated neighborhoods I've worked in here in TX there are TOO MANY deer, and they're frequently the cause of traffic accidents. The wildlife is very adaptible, It's the people who aren't.

As far as your math on deer populations, you need to go to Lakeway TX, there is a deer for every 1/4 acre and it's a heavily populated suburban area. They passed an ordinance by just one vote, to outlaw the feeding of the deer because of the massive overpopulation

Naturally, the liberals don't listen, and they diseases are rampant.

[zelmo1234]

When it comes to enjoying wilderness and recreation in the environment I prefer the take pictures, leave only footprints philosophy. Hunting bears, wolves, moose, elk, and so on is taking from that wilderness and i don't agree with that. It's not political for me it's just what I consider to be responsible and ethical.

It would be interesting for you to look into hunting, fishing, and the shooting sports, and just how much of the money that is spent on habitat restoration, and enviromental clean-up. The truth is you would not have a lot to take pictures of!

Check into how hunting regulations came into effect, and the Pittman Robertson act!

As you persue your dream of working in and for the enviroment. ther are a few things to remember. Results of a program are much better that something that sounds compasionate, and does not work, and the poor and lower middle class need energy too, and simple can not afford, some of the green energy programs. So you have to find a way to make it cost effective.

When you can replace our energy needs and save them money I will be right there with you. when you can replace the revenue and jobs and keep the amimals from eating and breeding themselves out of house and home. I will be right there with you. But remember that there are those that just want to have green energy now, and want to end hunting and fishing now and do not think of hw they are effecting other people lives.

[Chris]

no, bigotry is the problem in my opinion. If all men are created equal as the declaration of independence says, since everybody likes to quote from that, then the fact that a gay couple can't share the term "marriage" with a straight couple, who all love each other the same, is in fact inequality and needs to be recognized as that. People like to push the term "civil union" for gay people. Why not call everything a civil union then? Straight and gay couples have civil unions, and abolish the word marriage. It only makes sense.

A gay couple's love is no less of a form of love than a straight couple's love, and if marriage is the way to legally show that love then both should be able to enjoy that.

Right, but it is a bigotry enforced by law, by government. And yet you continue to look to that same government for solutions.

Your argument ought to be invoking AMENDMENT XIX.

[Dr. Who]

Obama won by divisive alienating. It's how elections are won, find the few key states or areas, divide them, attack your opponent, hope everyone vote to least of two evils.

Obama is sophisticated, but who needs sophistry?

You haven't said anything about Palin other than what the media said.

I wasn't really commenting on my personal view of Palin, but the public perception. Some of her views on religion, abortion rights and guns got her into trouble with the left-wing media. Once that happens it becomes a media witch hunt with a focus on any gaffe she might make. I don't personally think that she is out to lunch on many or even most issues, however, as I am personally a secularist, a Christian Right candidate is not my cup of tea. I think that any candidate that wishes to get elected needs to keep their religious views to themselves and refrain from commenting on abortion issues, as both touch people in a very personal way, whether liberal or conservative.

http://www.ontheissues.org/sarah_palin.htm

[Peter1469]

That brings us into another conversation though which is why is wildlife management necessary? The answer is because of unchecked human expansion and rampant habitat loss for wildlife. We create the situation where hunting is considered "necessary" in order to protect a species of animal due to overpopulation.

When animals have no home because it was destroyed they seek out a new home, and when their home is reduced from thousands of square miles of wilderness to hundreds of square miles of wilderness then the ecosystem is unbalanced. It's NOT the bear's fault or the deer's fault, it's OUR fault, but yet we think of ourselves as great and kind environmentalists and conservationists by us controlling the overpopulation that we created ourselves. It's not because they care, it's because they created the scenario. Eventually we will drive animals into smaller and smaller areas and will be left with only a handful of each species.

i actually think the future will be humans moving into denser population cores in new sustainable cities, with smaller rural populations producing food. There will be plenty of room for your furry friends.

[Peter1469]

I'm talking about the land mass, obviously no one lives on the water Chloe...

I can easily deny that our cities, roads malls and everything else have a negative impact on wildlife, because the wildlife lives among everything that gets built. I don't know about your neighborhood, and I live in a rural area and have an abundance of wildlife, but in many very populated neighborhoods I've worked in here in TX there are TOO MANY deer, and they're frequently the cause of traffic accidents. The wildlife is very adaptible, It's the people who aren't.

As far as your math on deer populations, you need to go to Lakeway TX, there is a deer for every 1/4 acre and it's a heavily populated suburban area. They passed an ordinance by just one vote, to outlaw the feeding of the deer because of the massive overpopulation

Naturally, the liberals don't listen, and they diseases are rampant.

The future:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuFrn2PTKCU

[Chris]

I wasn't really commenting on my personal view of Palin, but the public perception. Some of her views on religion, abortion rights and guns got her into trouble with the left-wing media. Once that happens it becomes a media witch hunt with a focus on any gaffe she might make. I don't personally think that she is out to lunch on many or even most issues, however, as I am personally a secularist, a Christian Right candidate is not my cup of tea. I think that any candidate that wishes to get elected needs to keep their religious views to themselves and refrain from commenting on abortion issues, as both touch people in a very personal way, whether liberal or conservative.

http://www.ontheissues.org/sarah_palin.htm

Whatever, it's a perception painted by the media, not based on what she actually represents.


Some of her views on religion, abortion rights and guns got her into trouble with the left-wing media.

Without your being specific I would argue her views as filtered by the media.


Once that happens it becomes a media witch hunt with a focus on any gaffe she might make.

From start to finish.


I don't personally think that she is out to lunch on many or even most issues, however, as I am personally a secularist, a Christian Right candidate is not my cup of tea. I think that any candidate that wishes to get elected needs to keep their religious views to themselves and refrain from commenting on abortion issues, as both touch people in a very personal way, whether liberal or conservative.

As I suspected, filtered through the media. While Palin is personally again abortion, gay marriage, etc, politically her position is government has no business imposing any one view on others, that instead it should be left to society to decide. That is far from the positions of say Bachmann or Santorum or Perry.

[Dr. Who]

Whatever, it's a perception painted by the media, not based on what she actually represents.



Without your being specific I would argue her views as filtered by the media.



From start to finish.



As I suspected, filtered through the media. While Palin is personally again abortion, gay marriage, etc, politically her position is government has no business imposing any one view on others, that instead it should be left to society to decide. That is far from the positions of say Bachmann or Santorum or Perry.
I guess that's the point. The media will filter any candidate's views, take things out of context, attribute things to them based on casual remarks that appear to favor a particular philosophy or belief. The voting public is not prone to extensively research the political candidates and take as truth, sound bites, political commentary and attributions. The media is careful not to disseminate outright lies - lawsuits can be expensive, but a good editing job can portray a candidate in the worst light. The candidate has to be very careful in what they say and how they say it, especially when they know they don't espouse populist views. Like it or not, America tends to be politically moderate. Socialist, Christian Right, Teabaggers and Libertarians are all associated with fringe political points of view.

[Chris]

I guess that's the point. The media will filter any candidate's views, take things out of context, attribute things to them based on casual remarks that appear to favor a particular philosophy or belief. The voting public is not prone to extensively research the political candidates and take as truth, sound bites, political commentary and attributions. The media is careful not to disseminate outright lies - lawsuits can be expensive, but a good editing job can portray a candidate in the worst light. The candidate has to be very careful in what they say and how they say it, especially when they know they don't espouse populist views. Like it or not, America tends to be politically moderate. Socialist, Christian Right, Teabaggers and Libertarians are all associated with fringe political points of view.

Media filter => moderate America? That's a leap.

I think America is still right of center, the the Obama win signifies little more than sound and fury.

[Mainecoons]

Dr. Who, this is not the even-handed media treatment you are fantasizing about. It is no accident that when polled, big majorities of the population understand the media is badly biased to the left. They didn't filter Obama's background or views, they hid the things that would have most certainly awaken people to all the irregularities in this individuals history and document forgeries. They would have awakened people to just how radical his views and associations were and are.

The leftist media sold the public a highly sanitized, idealized and blatantly false image of Barack Obama. They didn't even attempt to conceal themselves while doing so.

They always misrepresent and assassinate conservative minorities and women.

Every American, liberal, conservative or otherwise should be very concerned if not downright alarmed at the coopting of the media in this way. It used to be our most important watchdog but it has not only failed in that role, it has destroyed its own credibility in doing so.

[Dr. Who]

Media filter => moderate America? That's a leap.

I think America is still right of center, the the Obama win signifies little more than sound and fury.

How is that? He has been elected twice. When I say America is politically moderate, that is based on a statistical average. Urban voters tend to be largely liberal or moderate, and they tend to outnumber the more conservative voters of the rural areas. The swing votes tend to come from the urban centers. These are moderates who can vote either way, being neither hard core liberals or conservatives. The true moderates are the ones that any conservative candidate needs to sell. The fact that the Bush administration has left a bad taste in the mouths of these moderates pretty much guaranteed Obama's first Presidency. As to the 2012 election, Romney simply failed to sufficiently distance himself from anything remotely connected with his predecessor. The next election may well go the other way, given the current economic situation.

[Dr. Who]

Dr. Who, this is not the even-handed media treatment you are fantasizing about. It is no accident that when polled, big majorities of the population understand the media is badly biased to the left. They didn't filter Obama's background or views, they hid the things that would have most certainly awaken people to all the irregularities in this individuals history and document forgeries. They would have awakened people to just how radical his views and associations were and are.

The leftist media sold the public a highly sanitized, idealized and blatantly false image of Barack Obama. They didn't even attempt to conceal themselves while doing so.

They always misrepresent and assassinate conservative minorities and women.

Every American, liberal, conservative or otherwise should be very concerned if not downright alarmed at the coopting of the media in this way. It used to be our most important watchdog but it has not only failed in that role, it has destroyed its own credibility in doing so.

I am not fantasizing - I identified the media as being left-wing. Hollywood is also left-wing. Conservatives must be twice as careful as liberals in expressing their points of view. I really don't favor a partisan media, but it is what it is. The media point of view is dictated by their sponsors. Fox news is not left-wing, but for the most part the majority give the appearance of being more to the left. The sponsors only care about what sells, so if the majority of the media espouse a left leaning philosophy, it's because it appeals to more people than a right leaning philosophy. Fox identified a niche market that was being underserved. It all comes down to business.

[Chris]

How is that? He has been elected twice. When I say America is politically moderate, that is based on a statistical average. Urban voters tend to be largely liberal or moderate, and they tend to outnumber the more conservative voters of the rural areas. The swing votes tend to come from the urban centers. These are moderates who can vote either way, being neither hard core liberals or conservatives. The true moderates are the ones that any conservative candidate needs to sell. The fact that the Bush administration has left a bad taste in the mouths of these moderates pretty much guaranteed Obama's first Presidency. As to the 2012 election, Romney simply failed to sufficiently distance himself from anything remotely connected with his predecessor. The next election may well go the other way, given the current economic situation.

He was elected twice, fact. But what does it mean? I say, nothing at all. Nothing has changed.



"based on a statistical average" Oh? What statistical average are you referring to? Or are you just saying average is middle, somewhat tautologically.


Obama's a clone of Bush. Thank you media for inventing a difference. --Romney was just another clone.

[Dr. Who]

He was elected twice, fact. But what does it mean? I say, nothing at all. Nothing has changed.



"based on a statistical average" Oh? What statistical average are you referring to? Or are you just saying average is middle, somewhat tautologically.


Obama's a clone of Bush. Thank you media for inventing a difference. --Romney was just another clone.
http://persquaremile.com/2012/11/08/population-density-and-the-2012-presidential-election/
A picture is worth a thousand words.

[Chris]

http://persquaremile.com/2012/11/08/population-density-and-the-2012-presidential-election/
A picture is worth a thousand words.

Saw that the other day. Interesting. I know Texas votes mainly Rep but there's a concentration of Dems in major cities.

Voting at the county level is also interesting:

http://i.snag.gy/EeCvO.jpg

[Alif Qadr]

Unless you're a democrook, then you can run for president and have no worries about people concerning themselves with your past and exposing it. You can even cause the death of a woman and stay in the senate for 3 decades.

Remember Mary-Jo

[Chris]

http://persquaremile.com/2012/11/08/population-density-and-the-2012-presidential-election/
A picture is worth a thousand words.

Here's an interesting podcast on the tendency for urban areas to lean left and rural right: Rodden on the Geography of Voting (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/10/rodden_on_the_g.html):


Jonathan Rodden, political science professor at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution speaks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the geography of voting. The main focus is on the tendency of urban voters around the world to vote for candidates on the left relative to suburban and rural voters. Rodden argues that this pattern is related to the geography of work and housing going back to the industrial revolution. He also discusses the implications of various voting systems such as winner-take-all vs. proportional representation, the electoral college and how political systems and voter preferences can produce unexpected outcomes.

[Dr. Who]

Saw that the other day. Interesting. I know Texas votes mainly Rep but there's a concentration of Dems in major cities.

Voting at the county level is also interesting:

http://i.snag.gy/EeCvO.jpg
IMO, there is a fundamental difference between the reality of urban dwellers and that of rural dwellers. They might as well inhabit two different planets. The reality of urban dwellers depends on big government to succeed. City dwellers are dependent on commonly funded infrastructure, policing and yes welfare to ensure that people can go to work, have roads, lighting, transportation other services and not have homeless people begging on every corner or criminals preying on every member of the community. Urban centers have a higher concentration of the dysfunctional elements of society. While they breed their own quite readily, they also migrate there from rural communities. Urban dwellers are literally living on top of each other, but rarely even know their neighbors, unlike rural people who live more independently, but actually know their neighbors more intimately. There is more community in rural areas, more anonymity in urban communities. Terms such as "dog eat dog" and "rat race" were invented based on urban society. You cannot expect people with such a different reality to relate to small government messages. To the urban dweller, small government takes on the aspect of the dirty thirties, with the poor and indigent starving on the streets, begging for handouts or work and unchecked criminal activity. Urban dwellers cannot be self-sufficient. Most do not own land, cannot grow their own food, are dependent on a paycheck to survive. The whole liberal ideology stemmed from urban issues.

[Mainecoons]

Dr. Who, that's a brilliant post!

[Dr. Who]

Dr. Who, that's a brilliant post!

Thank you.

[JackRuby]

Dr. Who, that's a brilliant post!

I quite agree. America is a politically moderate country. As I state frequently Washington as in "George" detested the idea of political parties. Our system of government was set up to PREVENT EXTREMISM, and yet some of you partisans want your extremists in control?

Again Dr. Who great post.

Jack
Moderate Assassin

[Dr. Who]

I quite agree. America is a politically moderate country. As I state frequently Washington as in "George" detested the idea of political parties. Our system of government was set up to PREVENT EXTREMISM, and yet some of you partisans want your extremists in control?

Again Dr. Who great post.



Jack
Moderate Assassin

Thank you

[Chris]

IMO, there is a fundamental difference between the reality of urban dwellers and that of rural dwellers. They might as well inhabit two different planets. The reality of urban dwellers depends on big government to succeed. City dwellers are dependent on commonly funded infrastructure, policing and yes welfare to ensure that people can go to work, have roads, lighting, transportation other services and not have homeless people begging on every corner or criminals preying on every member of the community. Urban centers have a higher concentration of the dysfunctional elements of society. While they breed their own quite readily, they also migrate there from rural communities. Urban dwellers are literally living on top of each other, but rarely even know their neighbors, unlike rural people who live more independently, but actually know their neighbors more intimately. There is more community in rural areas, more anonymity in urban communities. Terms such as "dog eat dog" and "rat race" were invented based on urban society. You cannot expect people with such a different reality to relate to small government messages. To the urban dweller, small government takes on the aspect of the dirty thirties, with the poor and indigent starving on the streets, begging for handouts or work and unchecked criminal activity. Urban dwellers cannot be self-sufficient. Most do not own land, cannot grow their own food, are dependent on a paycheck to survive. The whole liberal ideology stemmed from urban issues.

I don't disagree but think you draw a static picture of a dynamic, fluid society. For example, it was rial conservatives who became urban dwellers, who turned liberal, following the industrial revolution. And then there's the great migration to the suburbs--my dad's German family, Blue Dog Democrats who hated FDRs, moved from city to suburb and my mom's Irish family, conservatives, from farm to suburban town.

And then we forget how modern technology, from TV to computers to cell phones, has isolated from each other even people living on top of one another.

[zelmo1234]

How is that? He has been elected twice. When I say America is politically moderate, that is based on a statistical average. Urban voters tend to be largely liberal or moderate, and they tend to outnumber the more conservative voters of the rural areas. The swing votes tend to come from the urban centers. These are moderates who can vote either way, being neither hard core liberals or conservatives. The true moderates are the ones that any conservative candidate needs to sell. The fact that the Bush administration has left a bad taste in the mouths of these moderates pretty much guaranteed Obama's first Presidency. As to the 2012 election, Romney simply failed to sufficiently distance himself from anything remotely connected with his predecessor. The next election may well go the other way, given the current economic situation.

If you relly want to look at what happened, we have ran 2 moderate canidates in a row. Republicans never win when thay run moderates. Look at the voting records of Romney and McCain. There was ont enough of a difference for the far right base to get out and vote, and if you look at the turn out, they didn't they stayed home.

Next while I will most likely be called racist by several on here, The fact that President Obama was Black moved a lot of the Hispanic and Black vote. I do not beleive that Conservative hispanics and black all of a sudden became liberal. They voted for someone that they felt had a better understanding of there issues. because he was one of them. A White Democrat looses in a land slide for 2 reasons, #1 you would not get the turn out in the african american communities, as we witnessed in 2010, Obama was not on the ticket and they did not get out a vote!

So now it will be interesting, I would have said that Hilary would have been there Canidate, but her statement last week will become a poster and TV ad that you will see over and over and over! So it is not a done deal. If they have a white male canidate. They might see just th opposite happen to them. As we have some rising stars, in Bobby J of LA and Rubio of FL. We also have a hispanic emale Gov that is a rising star! So even if they are not at the head of the ticket they are likely to be in the #2 spot. If it is Rubiom and I like his politics so I would vote for him. Then the hispanic community will have a chance for their first President, And the Black vote will most likely return to historical levels.

When you look at this and the population shift to conservative states that moved 11 electoral votes, and if any or all of WI, MI, PA, OH, VA do decide to alocate there electoral votes by congressional district, It is highly unlikely that the next president will be a Democrat. Unless the can turn the economy in a big way!

However we are now on to Gun Control and Immigration, plus the debt ceiling and budget, It is not likely that he will get anything done on jobs this year. whatever he is going to do will be done in 2014, unless the Dems somehow take the house in the 2014 elections If the REpublicans pick up seats in the house and senate, which is fairly historical, then Obama turns into a lame duck and not mush will get done in the last 2 years.

Yes the Press will do everything that they can to destroy the Republican canidate, but a true conservative values canidate, will be able to make a clear difference between the parties, something that McCain and Romney could not do

[Dr. Who]

I don't disagree but think you draw a static picture of a dynamic, fluid society. For example, it was rial conservatives who became urban dwellers, who turned liberal, following the industrial revolution. And then there's the great migration to the suburbs--my dad's German family, Blue Dog Democrats who hated FDRs, moved from city to suburb and my mom's Irish family, conservatives, from farm to suburban town.

And then we forget how modern technology, from TV to computers to cell phones, has isolated from each other even people living on top of one another.

I found your link most interesting. Thank you. It added additional information to what I had already intuided. I believe that those who became the suburban dwellers are indeed the moderate portion of the population that provide the swing vote that I was discussing. The suburban dweller lives in two worlds. One in which the average citizen is a land owner, however is also dependent on a big city for their livelihood. On a day to day basis they see the realities of cities and on the other hand they share some ideologies with the rural communities. Young people migrate to the cities, and may at some point move to the suburbs to provide what they perceive to be a a better environment for their children. The suburbs, being less densely populated, are more expensive in terms of taxation - old infrastructure being cheaper than new infrastructure. There is a tendency toward more conservative values based on higher levels property tax and to a large degree, a desire to preserve old fashioned family values. People in the suburbs are less reliant on government services as they have in general more access to private insurance provided by employers, more per capita income and are more likely than not to own a car. That being said, the concept of community does not always resonate in the suburbs, any more than it does in the cities. The population of suburbs is far more transient than rural society. Suburban people are not as likely to build long term relationships with the community as rural citizens. Suburban dwellers of the current variety, more often than not, seek to improve their social circumstance either by changing neighborhoods, or by buying more expensive houses. This is not a philosphy shared by rural dwellers.

As you noted, modern technology is decreasing the intimacy between people, not only in urban centers but also in rural communities. What the future may bring may alienate both liberals and conservatives alike.

[JackRuby]

If you relly want to look at what happened, we have ran 2 moderate canidates in a row. Republicans never win when thay run moderates. Look at the voting records of Romney and McCain. There was ont enough of a difference for the far right base to get out and vote, and if you look at the turn out, they didn't they stayed home.

Next while I will most likely be called racist by several on here, The fact that President Obama was Black moved a lot of the Hispanic and Black vote. I do not beleive that Conservative hispanics and black all of a sudden became liberal. They voted for someone that they felt had a better understanding of there issues. because he was one of them. A White Democrat looses in a land slide for 2 reasons, #1 you would not get the turn out in the african american communities, as we witnessed in 2010, Obama was not on the ticket and they did not get out a vote!

So now it will be interesting, I would have said that Hilary would have been there Canidate, but her statement last week will become a poster and TV ad that you will see over and over and over! So it is not a done deal. If they have a white male canidate. They might see just th opposite happen to them. As we have some rising stars, in Bobby J of LA and Rubio of FL. We also have a hispanic emale Gov that is a rising star! So even if they are not at the head of the ticket they are likely to be in the #2 spot. If it is Rubiom and I like his politics so I would vote for him. Then the hispanic community will have a chance for their first President, And the Black vote will most likely return to historical levels.

When you look at this and the population shift to conservative states that moved 11 electoral votes, and if any or all of WI, MI, PA, OH, VA do decide to alocate there electoral votes by congressional district, It is highly unlikely that the next president will be a Democrat. Unless the can turn the economy in a big way!

However we are now on to Gun Control and Immigration, plus the debt ceiling and budget, It is not likely that he will get anything done on jobs this year. whatever he is going to do will be done in 2014, unless the Dems somehow take the house in the 2014 elections If the REpublicans pick up seats in the house and senate, which is fairly historical, then Obama turns into a lame duck and not mush will get done in the last 2 years.

Yes the Press will do everything that they can to destroy the Republican canidate, but a true conservative values canidate, will be able to make a clear difference between the parties, something that McCain and Romney could not do

Not true. H W was a moderate. Reagan may have talked like a neo-conservative but in truth he was a moderate. Both sides have ran moderates and have had moderate presidents for the most part, arguing against Lincoln and FDR because of their circumstances. Jack Kennedy didn't get to live long enough for us to find out about him.

Jack

[zelmo1234]

Not true. H W was a moderate. Reagan may have talked like a neo-conservative but in truth he was a moderate. Both sides have ran moderates and have had moderate presidents for the most part, arguing against Lincoln and FDR because of their circumstances. Jack Kennedy didn't get to live long enough for us to find out about him.

Jack

Calling the man that was the father of the modern conservative movement a moderate, is interesting. but I might give you HW. but he road in on Reagaons coat tails. JFK would not be welcome in todays democratic party.

But if you were to compare McCain, or Romney to any of those 4, or even Clinton, they are to the left of all of them. The last noderate to actually win from the republicans was Nixon and that did not work out to well!

[Chris]

I found your link most interesting. Thank you. It added additional information to what I had already intuided. I believe that those who became the suburban dwellers are indeed the moderate portion of the population that provide the swing vote that I was discussing. The suburban dweller lives in two worlds. One in which the average citizen is a land owner, however is also dependent on a big city for their livelihood. On a day to day basis they see the realities of cities and on the other hand they share some ideologies with the rural communities. Young people migrate to the cities, and may at some point move to the suburbs to provide what they perceive to be a a better environment for their children. The suburbs, being less densely populated, are more expensive in terms of taxation - old infrastructure being cheaper than new infrastructure. There is a tendency toward more conservative values based on higher levels property tax and to a large degree, a desire to preserve old fashioned family values. People in the suburbs are less reliant on government services as they have in general more access to private insurance provided by employers, more per capita income and are more likely than not to own a car. That being said, the concept of community does not always resonate in the suburbs, any more than it does in the cities. The population of suburbs is far more transient than rural society. Suburban people are not as likely to build long term relationships with the community as rural citizens. Suburban dwellers of the current variety, more often than not, seek to improve their social circumstance either by changing neighborhoods, or by buying more expensive houses. This is not a philosphy shared by rural dwellers.

As you noted, modern technology is decreasing the intimacy between people, not only in urban centers but also in rural communities. What the future may bring may alienate both liberals and conservatives alike.

Yea, that was a fascinating piece linking population density to political views, right down to the precinct level.

I don't disagree with your analysis but think it a bit statistically abstract. The suburbs are moderate only on the average, for the neighbor on the left is rightwing and the neighbor on the right is leftwing. 100 yeards to the south is a street that forms the boundary between a largely Democrat precinct to the south and Rep to the north. I'm stuck in the middle, libertarian, which, of course, I consider the norm. :-) Anyway, those averages don't exist, real individuals do.

Still population density is interesting, more so that politics, for population density seems determinant. But what is it about population density? Could it be a matter of rural areas being more homogeneous, following similar traditions and mores, white urban areas are more heterogeneous, a mix of traditions, mores, requiring greater dependence on government? --I don't know, just speculating at this point.

[Chris]

Calling the man that was the father of the modern conservative movement a moderate, is interesting. but I might give you HW. but he road in on Reagaons coat tails. JFK would not be welcome in todays democratic party.

But if you were to compare McCain, or Romney to any of those 4, or even Clinton, they are to the left of all of them. The last noderate to actually win from the republicans was Nixon and that did not work out to well!

The modern conservative movement started in the 1950s. They were called New Conservatives at the time. Buckley, Kirk, people like that.

[zelmo1234]

The modern conservative movement started in the 1950s. They were called New Conservatives at the time. Buckley, Kirk, people like that.

Well Nixon and Ford sure did not fit that mold.

But Yes that would have been the Grand Fathers, so I guess we could call Ronny the GodFather?

[Chris]

Well Nixon and Ford sure did not fit that mold.

But Yes that would have been the Grand Fathers, so I guess we could call Ronny the GodFather?

Reagan may have been the end of conservatism.