Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
I don't think the Dems take her personally seriously, I think they take seriously the possibility that the Reps will run her for office. The media takes nothing seriously, except keeping the people from learning anything of use.
I didn't take Bush seriously until he got elected, however I did not take much interest in U.S. politics back then other then amusement that so many Americans got worked up about some president getting a blowjob in the oval office was considered a sin so big that it would warrant media attention let alone impeachment. America and Americans always looked strange until the illegal invasion of Iraq, at that point it became, at least in my eyes, extremely dangerous to world peace.
I don't think more than a few thousand people in the world realized how dangerous we were until the end of the Cold War. Certainly not many people in the U.S. did, until a lot of information like the Pentagon Papers and the Media, PA FBI office break-in that exposed COINTELPRO. And the passage of the Freedom of Information Act. That has made a LOT of information available on just how dangerous, and crazy, our foreign policy has been.
Seeing things like Kosovo really brings it home. We now have only ONE reaction to ANY question--military might. And it is almost always the WRONG answer, as it most emphatically was there.
And yet, we have, since the inception of the country, been warned against militarization. Washington told us that a standing army and a free people could not co-exist. Eisenhower warned us that the cabal of industry and the military would destroy us.
It is interesting that the Presidents who have warned us against that militarization were both generals; once would have to assume that they were speaking from their areas of expertise.
Oh, I always thought that the people of today would have learned since ww2 to not allow that kind of stupidity, I now know better.
Herman Goering explained how it worked to Gustave Gilbert in his cell during his trail on 18 April 1946;
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
I don't dislike her, I do not want her to be in charge of the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world because quite frankly I think she is to stupid, just like I would not want Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be president of the U.S.
I don't think she is stupid; I think she is amazingly clever. I just don't think she is interested in learning about government; at some point she realized all you have to do is get people to like you and say what they want to hear.
Palin's rise to fame is not only the most unpredictable cultural event I've ever witnessed, but simultaneously the most discouraging, depressing, and incomprehensible.
While Bush II may have tripped over his words, and often sounded like a dult, at least on paper he sounded good (i.e. Yale undergrad, Harvard grad, father was the President, brother was a governor). I realize the lineage aspect is a bit dynastic, but there's always the hope the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. Anyway, when it turned out that Bush may not have been the Statesman many believed, one who voted for him could always cite "plausible deniability."
With Palin, not so much. She's bad on paper, and her rhetoric is empty. Further, I don't think she should represent the "average American." For example, if I'm running a company, I'm not going to hire a CEO that has the same credentials as someone down on the assembly line. Rather, I'll hire a CEO with extensive experience and a top notch education with high marks. Don,t worry about the teleprompters, ya got yore hand job..
[3 points]2 years ago by BEC44ReplyEdited 2 years ago by BEC44
Canada
The teabaggers do. They like her legs and wink. In their estimation those are important qualities in a President of the United States.
This comment was deleted.
[-6 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyWhile I answered NO, I understand that there ARE people out there who do take her seriously and THAT is what scares me!
You and me both.
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplySome former beauty queen, I think.
The US Democrats and media do, as well as most of the respondents of your question -- they almost seem obsessed with her.
I don't think the Dems take her personally seriously, I think they take seriously the possibility that the Reps will run her for office. The media takes nothing seriously, except keeping the people from learning anything of use.
I didn't take Bush seriously until he got elected, however I did not take much interest in U.S. politics back then other then amusement that so many Americans got worked up about some president getting a blowjob in the oval office was considered a sin so big that it would warrant media attention let alone impeachment. America and Americans always looked strange until the illegal invasion of Iraq, at that point it became, at least in my eyes, extremely dangerous to world peace.
I don't think more than a few thousand people in the world realized how dangerous we were until the end of the Cold War. Certainly not many people in the U.S. did, until a lot of information like the Pentagon Papers and the Media, PA FBI office break-in that exposed COINTELPRO. And the passage of the Freedom of Information Act. That has made a LOT of information available on just how dangerous, and crazy, our foreign policy has been.
Seeing things like Kosovo really brings it home. We now have only ONE reaction to ANY question--military might. And it is almost always the WRONG answer, as it most emphatically was there.
And yet, we have, since the inception of the country, been warned against militarization. Washington told us that a standing army and a free people could not co-exist. Eisenhower warned us that the cabal of industry and the military would destroy us.
It is interesting that the Presidents who have warned us against that militarization were both generals; once would have to assume that they were speaking from their areas of expertise.
Oh, I always thought that the people of today would have learned since ww2 to not allow that kind of stupidity, I now know better.
Herman Goering explained how it worked to Gustave Gilbert in his cell during his trail on 18 April 1946;
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
-- Nuremberg Diary, page 278
Yup.
Not anyone who has ever heard her speak.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI don't dislike her, I do not want her to be in charge of the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world because quite frankly I think she is to stupid, just like I would not want Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be president of the U.S.
I don't think she is stupid; I think she is amazingly clever. I just don't think she is interested in learning about government; at some point she realized all you have to do is get people to like you and say what they want to hear.
I know she is a populist but when I hear her interviews, I cringe.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-6 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[0 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[0 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[0 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[0 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-6 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-6 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[0 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyPalin's rise to fame is not only the most unpredictable cultural event I've ever witnessed, but simultaneously the most discouraging, depressing, and incomprehensible.
While Bush II may have tripped over his words, and often sounded like a dult, at least on paper he sounded good (i.e. Yale undergrad, Harvard grad, father was the President, brother was a governor). I realize the lineage aspect is a bit dynastic, but there's always the hope the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. Anyway, when it turned out that Bush may not have been the Statesman many believed, one who voted for him could always cite "plausible deniability."
With Palin, not so much. She's bad on paper, and her rhetoric is empty. Further, I don't think she should represent the "average American." For example, if I'm running a company, I'm not going to hire a CEO that has the same credentials as someone down on the assembly line. Rather, I'll hire a CEO with extensive experience and a top notch education with high marks. Don,t worry about the teleprompters, ya got yore hand job..
This comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user Reply