RSS

This is the face of the base Republicans want to cater to? Consistently poor judgement won’t win elections. Or as WC Fields said “Never wise a sucker up”

09 Mar

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/sarah-palin-cpac-2014-030814palin-frowning

Advertisements
 

18 responses to “This is the face of the base Republicans want to cater to? Consistently poor judgement won’t win elections. Or as WC Fields said “Never wise a sucker up”

  1. mitchethekid

    March 9, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    This woman is an embarrassment to humanity, a raging resentful maniac. Good luck to the right wing! With “people” like her going for ‘ya, how can you lose? “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke.
    http://www.politicususa.com/2014/03/08/palin.html

     
  2. rustybrown2012

    March 9, 2014 at 1:17 pm

    What an execrable person she is. I like this nugget from the Esquire link:

    “We even got the inevitable gloat. Back five years ago, somebody wrote down on a little card for her that allowing the Russians to invade Georgia — as though there was anything we could have done about that — would embolden Vladimir Putin to move on Ukraine. She dutifully read it in public and now, of course, she is the smartest geopolitical mind in the country.”

     
  3. 02casper

    March 10, 2014 at 5:17 pm

    Frankly I consider Palin more of a negative for the right than a positive. She takes money that could be used for electing conservatives.

     
    • mitchethekid

      March 10, 2014 at 6:06 pm

      That’s the understatement of the past 10 yrs. She faked a pregnancy and named a Downs Syndrom child “Trig” which is medical shorthand for Trisomy G. Check these out:
      http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/ read the right side
      And this from Alaska. My man Jessie. http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/
      And not to forget Malia http://malialitman.wordpress.com/

      Get back with me on thoughts

       
      • meursault1942

        March 11, 2014 at 8:15 am

        Yes, Palin is an absolute albatross for the conservative movement (not to mention a hilariously shameless grifter), but there’s no reason to go all Trig Truther here. The facts are damning enough without having to invent conspiracy theories.

         
      • mitchethekid

        March 11, 2014 at 9:10 am

        Well I know it sounds conspiratorial but none of her story makes sense either to skeptics or obgyn’s. http://litbrit.blogspot.com/2010/07/sarah-palin-chose-b-ten-questions-for.html It was Andrew Sullivan who first proposed this “theory”. The first picture was taken March 26th, 2008. The 2nd April 13th, 2008. No human gestates so dramatically.
        Sarah Palin at Alaska State Museum, March 26, 2008, three weeks before officially giving birth to Trig

         
      • rustybrown2012

        March 11, 2014 at 11:38 am

        The pics don’t really prove anything. For one thing, cameras lie. They distort all the time and sometimes in the most outrageous ways. Also, three weeks is a fair amount of time in that stage of pregnancy, depending on the body type, clothing and angle of the photo it’s not unrealistic to see a noticeable difference. Finally, who’s to say the pictures are dated correctly? I would need to see a credible investigative source for the timeline to be sure I wasn’t just looking at a meme that’s been bouncing around the internet for several years.

         
      • mitchethekid

        March 11, 2014 at 12:33 pm

        Ah, another skeptic! Cameras don’t lie, photoshop does. Besides, the first photo was an “official” picture taken on that date while she was doing something governish. No one swells up that much in 2 weeks. No one. And what about the 10 questions?!?
        It really makes no difference whether it’s true or not. There is enough ancillary evidence for me to doubt her claims. Not that they prove anything but check out the links I provided. Politicalgates, Immoral Minority and Malia Litman. If this is a fantasy I have, so be it. Indulge me. Either way, she has had a perpetual temper tantrum for the past 5+ yrs. She is a pathological liar, a shameless self-promoter and a delusional fantasist. No slight is to small for her to ignore and she lives off her PAC. I just hope that she gets what’s coming to her.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        March 11, 2014 at 2:02 pm

        Cameras most certainly do lie. Technically, every single photograph we see is a lie–a cheap facsimile of reality. But beyond that, unintended distortion in photos happen all the time and serve to remind you how far removed a photograph is from what we see with our naked eyes (and of course what we perceive with our eyes is another step removed from reality):

        https://www.google.com/search?q=unintentional+photo+illusions&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=b3MfU5bSJJbooASitYDwBg&ved=0CCYQsAQ&biw=1289&bih=742

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2059455/The-camera-DOES-lie-Proof-lens-difference-pretty-pretty-ugly.html

        But besides that, she looks pretty chunky to me in the March photo and appears to be trying to hide it with her outfit which includes an oversized, stiff outer coat. She’s clearly fatter there than I’ve ever seen her non-pregnant.

        Also it’s closer to a three week difference, not two. I’ll stick with my verdict of inconclusive based on photo angle/distortion/peculiarities, clothes, posture, fetus shift etc. These factors or a combination of them are more than enough to account for the “discrepancy” in my opinion.

        Aside from all this, I’m in complete agreement with you that she is an horrible, horrible person.

         
      • mitchethekid

        March 11, 2014 at 2:51 pm

        Her jacket is wide open! Unpregnant belly exposed!

         
      • mitchethekid

        March 11, 2014 at 3:12 pm

        After looking at your links, a camera can’t make someone who’s pregnant flat stomached. Especially as close as the shot was taken and how many pixels it had. We are dealing with a disturbed person here. A raging lunatic. A narcissist and a sociopath. A two wheeled bile wagon. And white trash to boot!

         
      • rustybrown2012

        March 11, 2014 at 3:23 pm

        The jacket is half open, revealing part of her abdomen. Below, it bisects her crotch. Above, it covers her left tit. Half. Open. Much of her belly is hidden under her coat and left hand. Also notice how her stretchy pants (common with preggos) tent from her belly to mid thigh. If you could see the actual curve of her belly to pubis (which you can’t because of the tenting, which is commonly seen with fat people) her stomach would look rounder and larger. She also appears to be leaning forward slightly with her ass thrust out behind her for the step with the left leg. That brings the chest and shoulders forward in the shot and de-emphasizes her midsection.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        March 11, 2014 at 3:27 pm

        She is not flat stomached in the shot! She is clearly larger than normal. Look, I could take pictures of myself taken ten seconds apart that make me look at least ten pounds heavier in the middle based on angle, posture, stance, lighting, ext. You could do the same. Anybody could.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        March 11, 2014 at 3:28 pm

        Wow, I haven’t analyzed a picture of Sarah Palin like that in some time. And I wasn’t even masturbating!

         
    • rustybrown2012

      March 10, 2014 at 6:08 pm

      I agree. She’s also a turn off to a huge chunk of the electorate.

       
  4. rustybrown2012

    March 11, 2014 at 12:28 pm

    The GOP War on Women Part……oh fuck it, let’s just recognize that they really hate women.

    I posted something similar recently from Salon but I like Bazelon’s take on this issue, particularly her concise (but by no means complete) summary on the importance of birth control. It’s good to be reminded where both sides are actually coming from on this issue and what’s really at stake, as opposed to idiotic conservative talking points like “It’s the Democrats who really disrespect women!” and “We Republicans think women are strong and can fend for themselves!”. From Slate:

    “…a brief recap of why contraception coverage matters. The Department of Health and Human Services decided to include contraception as part of comprehensive preventive health care for women—and thus a service employers must cover under the Affordable Care Act—based on recommendations by the Institute of Medicine. The IOM looked at the outcomes associated with getting pregnant unintentionally and found connections to delayed prenatal care, premature delivery, low birth weight, maternal depression, and family violence. Getting pregnant without intending to also can prevent women from getting a degree or a job they aspire to. Birth control, in other words, helps women in wide-ranging ways. It’s pretty simple, really: Women are better off when they get to choose if and when to have babies. When birth control is part of the health insurance package, as opposed to an expense women foot on their own, their health literally benefits.”

    And remember, if the Palins had early access to birth control we would all be better off!

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/03/hobby_lobby_contraception_case_briefs_reveal_what_the_religious_right_really.html

     
 
%d bloggers like this: