Quote from: fuddmeister on January 25, 2016, 11:12:41 AM
If I were Trump, and even though it would make me a billionaire I would not trade places with him for ten times whatever his net worth is, I would not only shorten the leash, I would cinch up the collar where she could not speak above a whisper.  She's gonna, I hope, end up doing for him what she did for McCain, back when everybody thought she was the next Ronald Reagan.  I knew she was a dingbat even then.

This. Of course, neither I nor dingbat were on this forum at the time to have told you so, but I was on to her from day one, from the first speech she gave as nominee. I knew, and predicted, that was the end of any hope McCain had for the presidency. Granted, he was in dire straights already at that point, and her selection was a desperation Hail Mary, but it was badly ill-conceived. Within two weeks any bounce he got out of her was gone, and she was a millstone around his neck the rest of the campaign, despite the inexplicable enthusiasm she engendered in a certain segment of the conservative electorate.

She has always been as dumb as a bag of rice, and about as principled. I never liked her or understood her appeal.

Quote from: fuddmeister on January 25, 2016, 10:46:21 AM
Nope.  She is part and parcel of the far right.

Sorry, I skimmed through the posts, missed this.

Though I agree with dingbat's fuddmeister's evaluation of Palin, I disassociate myself from the view that Palin ever had anything truly in common with real conservatives, even though she fooled plenty of them. Besides that, "far right" seems a dismissive and condescending term, as if conservatism isn't a legitimate, mainstream political philosophy. There are tens of millions of us, the overwhelming majority upstanding and patriotic people.

Palin isn't "far right" either. She's just an opportunist, a shameless self-promoter, and a greedy, unprincipled person.

Edit: My bad, fuddmeister. You say the word "dingbat" enough times, it sticks in my head.

Quote from: Cali Contrarian on January 25, 2016, 02:03:09 PM
This. Of course, neither I nor dingbat were on this forum at the time to have told you so, but I was on to her from day one, from the first speech she gave as nominee. I knew, and predicted, that was the end of any hope McCain had for the presidency. Granted, he was in dire straights already at that point, and her selection was a desperation Hail Mary, but it was badly ill-conceived. Within two weeks any bounce he got out of her was gone, and she was a millstone around his neck the rest of the campaign, despite the inexplicable enthusiasm she engendered in a certain segment of the conservative electorate.

She has always been as dumb as a bag of rice, and about as principled. I never liked her or understood her appeal.

Incorrect.  McCain lost the moment he decided to support the bailouts.

What is the "far right?"

Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 25, 2016, 02:19:33 PM
What is the "far right?"

They always forget to tell us.

Quote from: taxed on January 25, 2016, 02:12:42 PM
Incorrect.  McCain lost the moment he decided to support the bailouts.

Eh. I get a lot of this. People telling me "incorrect" when they mean to say "I disagree." Don't know why I'm so ticklish on the point, but it bugs me a little.

For the record, my insight made me a four figure profit at the time, and the opportunity would have been lost by the time the bailout deal was in the news. Anybody remember Intrade? Sucks they aren't around any more.

Quote from: Cali Contrarian on January 25, 2016, 02:22:00 PM
Eh. I get a lot of this. People telling me "incorrect" when they mean to say "I disagree." Don't know why I'm so ticklish on the point, but it bugs me a little.

You're allowed to be wrong.  It happens.

Quote
For the record, my insight made me a four figure profit at the time, and the opportunity would have been lost by the time the bailout deal was in the news. Anybody remember Intrade? Sucks they aren't around any more.

Yay.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 25, 2016, 02:19:33 PM
What is the "far right?"

Apparently us, you know, the people that still believe in the Constitution.

Quote from: Cali Contrarian on January 25, 2016, 02:22:00 PM
Eh. I get a lot of this. People telling me "incorrect" when they mean to say "I disagree." Don't know why I'm so ticklish on the point, but it bugs me a little.

For the record, my insight made me a four figure profit at the time, and the opportunity would have been lost by the time the bailout deal was in the news. Anybody remember Intrade? Sucks they aren't around any more.

So why do you say he lost, if not for the bailouts?

Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 25, 2016, 02:19:33 PM
What is the "far right?"

Anybody  who isn't a Marxist....opps, I mean "progressive".

Quote from: Solar on January 25, 2016, 03:19:52 PM
So why do you say he lost, if not for the bailouts?

As I said, for one thing, picking Palin as a running mate didn't help. But as I also said, he was already well behind by that point. Asking me to remember and pick out the details eight years after the fact is pretty hard, but it wasn't one thing, necessarily. The voters just weren't eating his dog food. He was never ahead.

The way he handled the financial crisis hurt him for sure, but that only mattered to the final margin. He was always going to lose. Likewise, it is a fallacy to say that Romney lost because of Hurricane Sandy. It was dismaying to see how the mostly brain-dead voting populace responded (by definition, casting one's ballot for president based on the PR imagery of a disaster "response" is brain-dead), but post-election analysis shows that Romney's loss was cooked in the books by then. He was out-hustled on the ground and never would have turned a 1-2 point polling deficit into victory anyway.

Quote from: Cali Contrarian on January 25, 2016, 04:08:32 PM
As I said, for one thing, picking Palin as a running mate didn't help. But as I also said, he was already well behind by that point. Asking me to remember and pick out the details eight years after the fact is pretty hard, but it wasn't one thing, necessarily. The voters just weren't eating his dog food. He was never ahead.

The way he handled the financial crisis hurt him for sure, but that only mattered to the final margin. He was always going to lose. Likewise, it is a fallacy to say that Romney lost because of Hurricane Sandy. It was dismaying to see how the mostly brain-dead voting populace responded (by definition, casting one's ballot for president based on the PR imagery of a disaster "response" is brain-dead), but post-election analysis shows that Romney's loss was cooked in the books by then. He was out-hustled on the ground and never would have turned a 1-2 point polling deficit into victory anyway.

Mitten is irrelevant, he lost because he's squishy and the nation has had it with libs.
McCON was the focus of the issue, and I'm with Boo, he was warned not to push the bailouts, that it would be the end of his career, in fact I wrote Bush a letter telling them so, that if they did this, it would be pissing on the Constitution and a nail in the coffin of the GOP, (in summary) and it was.

Quote from: Solar on January 25, 2016, 04:14:38 PM
Mitten is irrelevant, he lost because he's squishy and the nation has had it with libs.
McCON was the focus of the issue, and I'm with Boo, he was warned not to push the bailouts, that it would be the end of his career, in fact I wrote Bush a letter telling them so, that if they did this, it would be pissing on the Constitution and a nail in the coffin of the GOP, (in summary) and it was.

You always want to interpret events in the context of your own belief system. I've noticed that by now. No problem, we'll just disagree on this one. He was well behind before he broke off campaigning and flew to Washington. It was a desperation move IMO, just like the Palin nomination. You could well argue that there was enough time for him to have come back, but during the whole course of the campaign, he never made a serious challenge. I can't prove a negative, I just don't see it that way. He was a poor candidate and ran a poor campaign.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 25, 2016, 02:19:33 PM
What is the "far right?"

We count from "left" to the "right", just like an IQ, the farther "left" you are... well, never mind....

Quote from: Cali Contrarian on January 25, 2016, 04:21:44 PM
You always want to interpret events in the context of your own belief system. I've noticed that by now. No problem, we'll just disagree on this one.

Ask anyone here here about my midterm predictions. Those had nothing to do with my personal enthusiasm knowing it would be historic, it was based on understanding where the country is and the government is not
.

QuoteHe was well behind before he broke off campaigning and flew to Washington. It was a desperation move IMO, just like the Palin nomination. You could well argue that there was enough time for him to have come back, but during the whole course of the campaign, he never made a serious challenge. I can't prove a negative, I just don't see it that way. He was a poor candidate and ran a poor campaign.

I'm not talking about his run for the WH, as I said, he killed any chance he had of making it to the WH when he pushed for TARP.
His only saving grace was Palin at the time, or he'd have lost by an even bigger margin.