Has Palin jumped the shark? Some think Palin's redefining political branding (Not negative!)

WSBT-TV / CNN ^ | March 25, 2014 | Halimah Abdullah, CNN

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Look I have problems with McCain.

Big problems in fact.

But McCain selected Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential candidate in 2008.

Palin is a loyal person. Regardless of how badly it irritates a great deal of us, she is a loyal person. Period.

She is going to support McCain.

In spite of that, she’ll be a fabulous next President.

[OneWingedShark]

A troll would jump on a Palin thread in 2014 at freerepublic, and post something like ‘what about McCain man???????? What about slavery man??????, what about the Crusades man??????

Who said anything about slavery or the Crusades?
That she supports and defends McCain, especially in the matter of censure which is between him and his constituents, is material to revealing a possibly major flaw in her character — only a fool believes their fellowman to be without flaws.

Then that troll would post nothing but silliness and insults, like calling the conservative primary voters who just named Palin as their favorite republican, a “cult” only liking her as a personality instead of for her incredible, history making effectiveness in advancing conservatism within the GOP.

I didn't say that — I fully qualified the sort of attitude indicative of the Palin Cult of Personality: inability to acknowledge weakness/flaw in Palin, inability to accept that one can hold a differing opinion (i.e. you must 100% agree with her, or you're not a real conservative [or troll]).

That troll wouldn’t really know much about her, not even something like her endorsing Senator Rand Paul against McConnell and the establishment wing of the GOP, or being credited with making Ted Cruz, also a favorite of conservatives, a Senator, or helping to create other Senators and Governors and Congressmen.

I didn't care because Paul and McConnel are on the completely other side of the country from me and I've got no family or friends in that area at all.
Moreover, I tend to weight endorsements fairly low unless its endorsing someone who has a proven record of acting contrary to the Constitution (e.g. McCain).

[ansel12]

The Crusades and slavery reference was to the similarity it shares with bringing up McCain for the 10000th time in 2014 on freerepublic.

Doped up kid pot heads do that on every topic, “”Oh Yeah? well, well,,,, What about slavery man????? Huh? we had slavery man.....”

You admit you are a troll, and you are living up to it, not saying anything of substance, just dumping on the leader of the conservative movement.
You even admit that you don’t know much about her, or her effectiveness in national politics, or even care, because evidently, according to you, the national political scene isn’t on your radar much.

So here you are, just trolling and venting.

[OneWingedShark]

You even admit that you don’t know much about her,

Insofar as who she endorses, nope.
Again, I generally put very little importance on endorsements in-general.

or her effectiveness in national politics,

You were the one that said that she's shaped/influenced the republican party for the past 5.5 years — I'm sorry if the reality that the Republican party is currently craptastic rains on your parade but that's the truth. They are either balless wonders that have no vision or drive, or colluding with the Democrats to bring about that statist vision; both cases are terrible and speak very poorly of someone that, as you say, Continuing to search for silly responses doesn’t advance your knowledge of the political reality, almost every conservative alive would look at the political effect the Governor has had on the GOP in the last 5.5 years and know that it is good, and that she has helped bring in a new breed of aggressive, confident conservatives. because the fact is that there is jack-shit for aggressive, confident conservatives in the GOP. The only exception that springs readily to mind is Ted Cruz, followed by a general good-impression of Trey Gowdy… there might be some more good guys in the GOP, but they are the exception and not the norm.

or even care, because evidently, according to you, the national political scene isn’t on your radar much.

Some portions simply aren't worth my time or effort, as I've said I don't give a crap about endorsements unless it's for someone who plainly acts contrary to the constitution… in which case I take it as a mark against the endorser.

[ansel12]

Rather than troll endlessly against Palin without saying anything substantive and then repeating it endlessly, why don’t you just get to the point.

You are a libertarian and a long time Ron Paul supporter, who wanted to vote for him in 2008 if your state had him on the ballot, and you can’t stand conservatism and you want to promote libertarianism.

Just get to the point and to what you really want to get to.

[OneWingedShark]

You are a libertarian and a long time Ron Paul supporter, who wanted to vote for him in 2008 if your state had him on the ballot, and you can’t stand conservatism and you want to promote libertarianism.

Long time? Hardly; but I would have voted for him over Obama (or even McCain) in a heartbeat.
You're a moron if you think I can't stand conservatism, unless perhaps you mean the keep things the same brand, then you're actually right.

Just get to the point and to what you really want to get to.

The point that I was making I already made — it is foolish to hold her up as some sort of incorruptible, flawless politician and that she does support/defend McCain is reason enough to give one pause.

[ansel12]

We can see that the Ron Paul libertarians are still here, and still going to troll against conservatism, for years that has meant to stop Palin, but now that will also have to spread to Cruz.

It will be interesting to watch you guys try to take out the conservative movement.

I assume that since Rand Paul is moving left and into an anti-conservative position, that he is starting to win your heart some.

[OneWingedShark]

We can see that the Ron Paul libertarians are still here, and still going to troll against conservatism,

If by conservative you mean advocating founding principles, then you'd align with Ron Paul on at least two issues:

1. That the Federal Reserve ought to be audited and abolished, and
2. that the War on Drugs is federal overreach.

Note that the second position need not mean that you advocate using drugs, merely that the Federal government does not have the legitimate authority to do so, and that allowing it to continue erodes the Rule of Law and the Constitution itself.

for years that has meant to stop Palin, but now that will also have to spread to Cruz.

LOL — I really like Cruz.
That Palin's rabid fans (cult of Personality) do make me a bit leery of her is irrelevant to whether or not I would support Ron Paul.

It will be interesting to watch you guys try to take out the conservative movement.

What are you talking about?

I assume that since Rand Paul is moving left and into an anti-conservative position, that he is starting to win your heart some.

If I was in charge I'd do my best to get rid of all federal agencies except the following:

1. The Post Office
2. The Navy (this includes the Marines, which are a sub-department of the Navy)
3. The Army
4. The Secret Service (their bodyguard/security rolls would need revoked; their agency is supposed to be concerned w/ counterfeiting)
5. The DOT (this would need cut down drastically, but the Constitution does provide for congress to make laws for the purpose of making interstate commerce regular)
6. The IRS (unless you'd like to argue about the legitimacy of the 16th amendment)
7. The INS (congress has the authority, and obligation, to have a uniform immigration policy)
8. The Foreign Service component of the Department of State.

So, um, why don't you blow it out your ass?

[ansel12]

There you go, now that is so much more honest and informative than being an anti-Palin troll.

This is what we are used to seeing from the long time Ron Paul supporters.

[OneWingedShark]

So are you saying that you support the Federal Reserve, despite that it is in effect the Congress ceding its authority (and trying to do so with its responsibility/accountability) WRT monetary policy? — I thought conservatives were supposed to be for responsibility and accountability in governance.

Are you claiming that the War on Drugs is well and good> — Because I thought that the conservative was supposed to respect the law and the War on Drugs certainly does not: there is no Constitutional amendment which allows for federal regulation thereof, all the authority claimed/usurped to implement the War on Drugs comes from judicial fraud (essentially alteration of the Constitution), to wit: Kickard and Raich… it is exactly upon Raich that the Affordable Care Act can be justified: for if the federal government can, via interstate commerce regulation, regulate items that have never been involved in commerce then they can obviously compel a person to engage in commerce because even non-commerce is interstate commerce.

[ansel12]

LOL, let it out, you kept it in all thread long, just let it flow.