You Betcha: Palin Won't Run

Partner Links

Read the comment policy

Showing 3 of 50 comments

I don't know, can we really trust someone who can't take the heat as a governor as a president? Chances are that she may fade into obscurity since she quit her job as a governor. I can't predict the future, but I doubt that even if she is considered for a future run as president, there will be someone more prominent who has risen through the ranks to take her place.

Sorry I meant to add this. Since I'm sure you'll still disagree, we'll do the same posting exchange, but this time with your examples. I SAY: You will never reverse women's suffrage or return blacks to slavery. YOU SAY: Actually you're wrong on all points galileo. Everything that is put into place by one president can be changed by the next president. This highlights the fact that I'm basing my position off of history and reason, and your position is that you've got me on the technicality that it is in fact POSSIBLE. I think we can all see how silly it is :)

@godawgs - Yes, I know you can physically take something back after you grant it. I addressed that when I said I DID NOT MEAN you can never reverse something a President does. Of course I mean I THINK it will not happen, BASED ON THE HISTORY OF AMENDMENTS/POLICIES where RIGHTS ARE GRANTED. I find it irritating when someone responds to a post like "bet ya didn't think of that," but I actually did and already addressed it. It's frustrating to have to say the same thing over and over again until you understand. But I guess that's my fault for not being detailed enough? So again, for you godawgs, my point is that -->I DON'T THINK <-- those things would ever be reversed because if you look at history, in cases where rights are granted, we don't go backwards and reverse it, taking away the rights. Like, for example, women's suffrage and the end of slavery. Do you think it is likely that we will reverse those? No, of course we won't. But according to you, we could very well go back to slavery because it's physically possible to reverse it. Right? And your example of CA is not the same because it's more complicated i.e. they moved it out of the courts to be a voting issue. So just to double check your reading comprehension, my argument is NOT that it is physically impossible for the President to reverse something, my argument is that based on the history of cases where rights are granted, we don't really tend to reverse the decision and take the rights away. So I suppose I didn't confuse myself. I guess you just didn't understand? Yikes, embarrassing. I think you'd have better luck debating if you actually respond to what I say. Good try though.