Hans Talhoffer
Active Member
Not a woman to be seen on your list. So, we should pander to the misogynist vote?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not a woman to be seen on your list. So, we should pander to the misogynist vote?No kidding, i know a lot of Democrats who are encouraging her to run because if she does that would be beneficial for Obama.
There is a long list of Republicans who would be a better candidate than Palin, including but not limited to
Mitt Romney
Hailey Barbour
Tim Pawlenty
Mike Pence
Mike Huckabee
Bobby Jindal
Newt Gingrich
Rick Perry
Bob McDonnell
John Thune
Paul Ryan
Nominating Palin would hand Obama dozens of electoral votes from swing states on a silver platter.
Do you have any specific female potential candidates in mind?Not a woman to be seen on your list. So, we should pander to the misogynist vote?
Every female candidate presented by the right is mercilessly ridiculed, regardless of merit. Thinly masked misogyny pretending to be democracy. What is this, the 19th century?Do you have any specific female potential candidates in mind?
No, it's the post-Palin, post-O'Donnell, post-Angle 21st century. Humor me and give me your choice for a female Republican candidate.Every female candidate presented by the right is mercilessly ridiculed, regardless of merit. Thinly masked misogyny pretending to be democracy. What is this, the 19th century?
Humour you? Because any female candidate would be a joke to you, wouldn't it?No, it's the post-Palin, post-O'Donnell, post-Angle 21st century. Humor me and give me your choice for a female Republican candidate.
I think that's a figure of speech. What are you afraid of? Just tell me your choice.Humour you? Because any female candidate would be a joke to you, wouldn't it?
Palin being the topic of the thread, lets start there...I think that's a figure of speech. What are you afraid of? Just tell me your choice.
The most important office Palin ever held was governor of Alaska, a state with a smaller population than the city of Austin. When she ran for vice president, she evidently had no grasp of either economics or foreign policy and she hasn't said anything since that would indicate she now knows more about these issues. She is not qualified for anything bigger than she already did, and I'd say she is most qualified for writing lowest-common-denominator books and clumsily killing animals for TV.Palin being the topic of the thread, lets start there...
[cue strawman anti-feminist diatribe in 3-2-]
I knew you'd do that. The instant I mention a female candidate, you respond with nothing but a bunch of ad hominems against her.The most important office Palin ever held was governor of Alaska, a state with a smaller population than the city of Austin. When she ran for vice president, she evidently had no grasp of either economics or foreign policy and she hasn't said anything since that would indicate she now knows more about these issues. She is not qualified for anything bigger than she already did, and I'd say she is most qualified for writing lowest-common-denominator books and clumsily killing animals for TV.
Pointing out that somebody lacks the qualifications for a political office is not an ad hominem fallacy.I knew you'd do that. The instant I mention a female candidate, you respond with nothing but a bunch of ad hominems against her.
Of course it is. Didn't matter who I mentioned as a candidate. If it was a woman, you were going to come up with a whole negative thing. You just proved my point. Sarah Palin, and all you do is rubbish her.Pointing out that somebody lacks the qualifications for a political office is not an ad hominem fallacy.
I don't think you understand what an ad hominem fallacy is.Of course it is.
None of my objections are gender-specific. I'd criticize any male candidate for the same reasons.Didn't matter who I mentioned as a candidate. If it was a woman, you were going to come up with a whole negative thing. You just proved my point. Sarah Palin, and all you do is rubbish her.
Not gender specific at all.The most important office Palin ever held was governor of Alaska, a state with a smaller population than the city of Austin. When she ran for vice president, she evidently had no grasp of either economics or foreign policy and she hasn't said anything since that would indicate she now knows more about these issues. She is not qualified for anything bigger than she already did, and I'd say she is most qualified for writing lowest-common-denominator books and clumsily killing animals for TV.
Would you consider the gender neutral 'it' to be somehow more appropriate?Not gender specific at all.
There is a long list of Republicans who would be a better candidate than Palin, including but not limited to
Mitt Romney
Hailey Barbour
Tim Pawlenty
Mike Pence
Mike Huckabee
Bobby Jindal
Newt Gingrich
Rick Perry
Bob McDonnell
John Thune
Paul Ryan
Not gender specific at all.
I'd put a woman at the very top of that list---Olympia Snowe. Without question, she's the best Republican holding a national office today.
And, if it matters anymore, Sarah failed to help Joe Miller get elected to the Senate.
Goodbytes claimed not to be arguing in gender specific terms. I am highlighting the eroneous nature of that claim.Would you consider the gender neutral 'it' to be somehow more appropriate?
Goodbytes claimed not to be arguing in gender specific terms. I am highlighting the eroneous nature of that claim.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?