And which of those do you feel would enjoy unfettered bi-partisan support?

If the nation and the economy keep digressing at the rate it has the last 2 years there won't be many Dems left to get in the way..

If the nation and the economy keep digressing at the rate it has the last 2 years there won't be many Dems left to get in the way..

 

You haven't answered my question.

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

You haven't answered my question.

Repeal ObamaCare and drill now would get the most bi-partisan support right now..

Obama's intelligence lies not in his degree. Those Ivy League schools hand out passing grades just to keep those monies flowing. Obama does not know anything of what an average American goes through, whether they live in the suburbs or the inner city. I believe he has lead a life where is has had it paved for him. Obama's average intelligence shows up when he speaks without the teleprompter.

Who was the last president who did know anything about what an average American goes through, other than what his staff briefed him on? Carter maybe? Before that you're probably talking before FDR. They're all insulated for so long before they become president that even if they had known at one time, they would forget it by the time they're elected.

Obama's intelligence lies not in his degree. Those Ivy League schools hand out passing grades just to keep those monies flowing. Obama does not know anything of what an average American goes through, whether they live in the suburbs or the inner city. I believe he has lead a life where is has had it paved for him. Obama's average intelligence shows up when he speaks without the teleprompter.

 

First, I again think you are gravely wrong about his intelligence.

 

Second...you think Sarah Palin knows anything about what an "Average American" goes through? :lol:

First, I again think you are gravely wrong about his intelligence.

 

Second...you think Sarah Palin knows anything about what an "Average American" goes through? :lol:

 

Agree with your first comment.

 

Somewhat agree & somewhat disagree with the second. I think of most politicians at that level of name recognition, she has a better understanding than the vast majority.

Agree with your first comment.

 

Somewhat agree & somewhat disagree with the second. I think of most politicians at that level of name recognition, she has a better understanding than the vast majority.

 

Here's where I disagree that she has any better understanding than any other politician:

 

She's not lead a life of "average". Her family hasn't lead an "average" existence. Maybe for Alaska, but I doubt it. To be "average" it has to be somewhat comparable to most people in the constituency. I don't think being a "hockey mom" or a "soccer mom" are necessarily what defines average. I think it's experience in dealing with the issues that the people who live an "average life" have to deal with...and to that I don't see any politician who fits the bill, unless they grew up in "average" circumstances. But then, let's define even the term "average" as a whole. What's average in Kentucky is not likely to be average in California, nor Oregon, nor Mississippi, nor Hawaii. So, when I look to see if a candidate understands my issues, I look to one who may have some experience with dealing with issues I've identified as my personal definition of average, based on the socio-economic-cultural-norms of my area.

 

And I personally think she's as far out of touch as any. I think she tries to present the "down home, average mom" image. But a closer look shows otherwise.

Here's where I disagree that she has any better understanding than any other politician:

 

She's not lead a life of "average". Her family hasn't lead an "average" existence. Maybe for Alaska, but I doubt it. To be "average" it has to be somewhat comparable to most people in the constituency. I don't think being a "hockey mom" or a "soccer mom" are necessarily what defines average. I think it's experience in dealing with the issues that the people who live an "average life" have to deal with...and to that I don't see any politician who fits the bill, unless they grew up in "average" circumstances. But then, let's define even the term "average" as a whole. What's average in Kentucky is not likely to be average in California, nor Oregon, nor Mississippi, nor Hawaii. So, when I look to see if a candidate understands my issues, I look to one who may have some experience with dealing with issues I've identified as my personal definition of average, based on the socio-economic-cultural-norms of my area.

 

And I personally think she's as far out of touch as any. I think she tries to present the "down home, average mom" image. But a closer look shows otherwise.

 

I don't doubt most of what you say. I'm just saying for a politician with her level of exposure (I'm talking the 15-20 most recognized politicians), I think she is more suited to understand average than most.

I don't doubt most of what you say. I'm just saying for a politician with her level of exposure (I'm talking the 15-20 most recognized politicians), I think she is more suited to understand average than most.

 

I equate her with "celebrity" more than I equate her with politician.

Obama's intelligence lies not in his degree. Those Ivy League schools hand out passing grades just to keep those monies flowing. Obama does not know anything of what an average American goes through, whether they live in the suburbs or the inner city. I believe he has lead a life where is has had it paved for him. Obama's average intelligence shows up when he speaks without the teleprompter.

 

My son teaches at one of those Ivy League schools. I know for a fact that he doesn't hand out (implicitly unearned) grades.

Here's where I disagree that she has any better understanding than any other politician:

 

She's not lead a life of "average". Her family hasn't lead an "average" existence. Maybe for Alaska, but I doubt it. To be "average" it has to be somewhat comparable to most people in the constituency. I don't think being a "hockey mom" or a "soccer mom" are necessarily what defines average. I think it's experience in dealing with the issues that the people who live an "average life" have to deal with...and to that I don't see any politician who fits the bill, unless they grew up in "average" circumstances. But then, let's define even the term "average" as a whole. What's average in Kentucky is not likely to be average in California, nor Oregon, nor Mississippi, nor Hawaii. So, when I look to see if a candidate understands my issues, I look to one who may have some experience with dealing with issues I've identified as my personal definition of average, based on the socio-economic-cultural-norms of my area.

 

And I personally think she's as far out of touch as any. I think she tries to present the "down home, average mom" image. But a closer look shows otherwise.

 

She was a normal citizen that ran for mayor of a town and later became Governor. She has a few children. One has a disability and one had a child at a very young age out of wedlock. She isn't exactly girl next door, but she's far from a career politician or anyone that strived for a career in politics. It's why she seems "dumb" at times. She isn't remotely a good candidate for President and I'm not sure why she is treated as such. I think the poll numbers are a joke actually. There is no way she can win the nomination. She is however a lot closer to a huge percentage of voters. People that don't follow politics vote. That's who she appeals to. Anyone that knows she made a mistake on this Revere issue wouldn't vote for her anyway and that includes most Republicans. But what percent of Americans that vote do you think have no clue she even said what she said? I'd say between 60-75%. It's a sad part of elections.

She was a normal citizen that ran for mayor of a town and later became Governor. She has a few children. One has a disability and one had a child at a very young age out of wedlock. She isn't exactly girl next door, but she's far from a career politician or anyone that strived for a career in politics. It's why she seems "dumb" at times. She isn't remotely a good candidate for President and I'm not sure why she is treated as such. I think the poll numbers are a joke actually. There is no way she can win the nomination. She is however a lot closer to a huge percentage of voters. People that don't follow politics vote. That's who she appeals to. Anyone that knows she made a mistake on this Revere issue wouldn't vote for her anyway and that includes most Republicans. But what percent of Americans that vote do you think have no clue she even said what she said? I'd say between 60-75%. It's a sad part of elections.

 

Define "normal citizen" for me here.

Define "normal citizen" for me here.

 

I would assume he means she didn't come from a wealthy family, didn't come from a prestigious family, rather from a working class family. :idunno: