• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michele Bachmann announces presidential campaign

What did she do exactly? I think she seemed her normal self... lol

I haven't actually watched a lot of her, but every time I do she bugs me. It just continued tonight. In large part, more than any others, she just screamed "CAMPAIGNING" to me. Everything seemed like a rehearsed, practiced, planned answer to the point where if she didn't like the question she'd immediately go into that and just say to hell with it. I disliked the CONSTANT reminder of her kids and adopted kids. She just came off as phony, full of herself, and hollow. Really didn't like her.
 
Latest known re: Palin.

Missing from the proceedings were two possible entrants. Former Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. of Utah, who recently returned from China as Mr. Obama’s ambassador, is expected to get into the race as soon as next week, but he declined an invitation to participate in the debate. And one week after she visited the state, former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, whose decision seems to be more up in the air, also declined.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/us/14repubs.html
 
I haven't actually watched a lot of her, but every time I do she bugs me. It just continued tonight. In large part, more than any others, she just screamed "CAMPAIGNING" to me. Everything seemed like a rehearsed, practiced, planned answer to the point where if she didn't like the question she'd immediately go into that and just say to hell with it. I disliked the CONSTANT reminder of her kids and adopted kids. She just came off as phony, full of herself, and hollow. Really didn't like her.

I used to know somebody that adopted a kid, and she'd always point out it was adopted... and she did it constantly, even when it wasn't a topic, and she'd tell strangers that. I felt really bad for the the child because of that. Why always point that out, and right in front of the kid? I wonder how she'd feel if somebody said to her adopted child, "you have a nice mom," and she'd respond, "well, she's not actually my mom."
 
I haven't actually watched a lot of her, but every time I do she bugs me. It just continued tonight. In large part, more than any others, she just screamed "CAMPAIGNING" to me. Everything seemed like a rehearsed, practiced, planned answer to the point where if she didn't like the question she'd immediately go into that and just say to hell with it. I disliked the CONSTANT reminder of her kids and adopted kids. She just came off as phony, full of herself, and hollow. Really didn't like her.

Why does every female politician, on either side of the aisle, do that? Seriously, how does having a bazillion kids make you a qualified politician? I get so, so, sick of hearing women politicians skirting around whatever they're trying to wiggle out of answering by lowing about their kids.

Why do they script her? Easy. So she doesn't accidentally do things like attribute the beginning of the Revolution to the wrong state, or randomly break into prayer to help the misguided gays. She's a liability when she speaks for herself, basically.
 
Why does every female politician, on either side of the aisle, do that? Seriously, how does having a bazillion kids make you a qualified politician? I get so, so, sick of hearing women politicians skirting around whatever they're trying to wiggle out of answering by lowing about their kids.

Why do they script her? Easy. So she doesn't accidentally do things like attribute the beginning of the Revolution to the wrong state, or randomly break into prayer to help the misguided gays. She's a liability when she speaks for herself, basically.

I haven't seen many other women politicians do that.... it's mostly Conservative women, because it's code for "I am pro life." That's how the religious right expects women to be. If you're vagina is a clown car, you're presidential material... and they love Palin even more because she had a special needs child.

In fact, a Palin fan eluded to Palin being "more of a woman" than me a few minutes ago... I have seen Rush and other talking heads make similar points.
 
It doesn't matter who takes the nomination, right? Anybody would be better than Obama, as I'm understanding it. So once the Republicans take the Oval Office, everything will be improved within the following eighteen months.
 
To be honest, I believe Bachman is a mirror for talking points and barely has any free thinking thoughts or ideas (although I feel the same way about Obama). Given the choice between her and Obama, I would chose her. Although, there are much better choices for a presidential candidate besides Bachman.
 
To be honest, I believe Bachman is a mirror for talking points and barely has any free thinking thoughts or ideas (although I feel the same way about Obama). Given the choice between her and Obama, I would chose her. Although, there are much better choices for a presidential candidate besides Bachman.

Really digs? I think your under evaluating Obama.
 
I haven't seen many other women politicians do that.... it's mostly Conservative women, because it's code for "I am pro life." That's how the religious right expects women to be. If you're vagina is a clown car, you're presidential material... and they love Palin even more because she had a special needs child.

In fact, a Palin fan eluded to Palin being "more of a woman" than me a few minutes ago... I have seen Rush and other talking heads make similar points.

I saw Pelosi do a fair amount of it. Palin does a ton of it. I'll give Hilary credit for not going for the kids card much, though.

Ugh, seriously? That's a bit sick, really. Not only children as trophies (sick enough in and of itself - using your previously orphaned or disabled kid as a talking point just strikes me as sociopathic), but women as walking wombs. I can't imagine how much you have to hate yourself as a woman to resort to that.
 
Last edited:
Really digs? I think your under evaluating Obama.

I think Obama really isn't all that intelligent. His advisers and appointees run the show and he is the charismatic face for their ideals. My personal opinion is that Obama is similar to Bachman. Nothing but talking points and largely devoid of individual intelligent thoughts or ideas.
 
I think Obama really isn't all that intelligent. His advisers and appointees run the show and he is the charismatic face for their ideals. My personal opinion is that Obama is similar to Bachman. Nothing but talking points and largely devoid of individual intelligent thoughts or ideas.

I disagree completely. Obama is more than just a charismatic face, and is more intelligent than Bachmann. Obama has been a mediocre president, while Bachmann would be a train wreck, and turn this country into the ground. And it is not because she is a conservative, but because she is not smart enough for the job.
 
Need I remind everyone she said that instead of answering a question provided by the man trying to copy Anderson Cooper's look? I believe he has a last name that is also a blatant attempt to copy the old man with the suspenders who had a habit of falling asleep on his own radio show back in the day.
 
I wonder how Sarah Palin feels about this news...

I would bet that she's excited to have a potential running mate. Palin/Bachman...Bachman/Palin...either way, I think Obama should start packing his ****.
 
I disagree completely. Obama is more than just a charismatic face, and is more intelligent than Bachmann. Obama has been a mediocre president, while Bachmann would be a train wreck, and turn this country into the ground. And it is not because she is a conservative, but because she is not smart enough for the job.

I agree that she definitely isn't smart enough. But I also feel that Obama is currently causing the country to wreck with the spending and poor handling of the economy. The liberal ideals that I have (like universal healthcare) have not been delivered by Obama. I don't see any real reason to support him. I really don't like how he is handling things in Libya and I very much dislike how he treats those who disagree with him.

There are many things about Bachman that I dislike. I am completely against her stance regarding homosexuality and SSM issues. However, other issues that I am very passionate about (like abortion) I agree with her and I can see her actually trying to do something about those issues. With Obama I don't see any of my beliefs being enacted, and I do not believe he is a man of good character in the way that he treats political dissidents.
 
I disagree completely. Obama is more than just a charismatic face, and is more intelligent than Bachmann. Obama has been a mediocre president, while Bachmann would be a train wreck, and turn this country into the ground. And it is not because she is a conservative, but because she is not smart enough for the job.

I see in Obama's public image the same thing I see in Carter's, or Ken Livingston's (former mayor of London - I was around for his last term).

I think all three of them are extremely intelligent, consistently clear-headed, and often right. But none of them are especially well-liked. Obama is charismatic, but only for the duration of the time he's speaking. And all of them had a problem of trying to figure out how to get into the right conversations with their fellow politicians.

I think what all three of them have in common, and what has lended each of them a similar public opinion, is that they are long-term thinkers. They did things that are intended to benefit us down the line, more than right this second.

That is not a popular thing in modern politics. It makes it harder for them to be effective, and it makes it harder for them to get the public on board. People want to see it now - and if it all goes to hell 10 year down the line, they really don't care. As long as they get results now.

I think it's a failing of the public's thinking, more than a failing of those particular politicians.
 
Last edited:
I disagree completely. Obama is more than just a charismatic face, and is more intelligent than Bachmann. Obama has been a mediocre president, while Bachmann would be a train wreck, and turn this country into the ground. And it is not because she is a conservative, but because she is not smart enough for the job.

Bachman knows that the best way for the government to fix the economy, is for the government to get the hell out of the way and stop scaring the crap out of the private sector with threats of higher taxes and over-regulation; which puts her miles ahead of O'Bama in the brains department. Although, I don't think O'Bama is screwing the country up because he's stupid, rather he's doing it on purpose, because he hates America.
 
I see in Obama's public image the same thing I see in Carter's, or Ken Livingston's (former mayor of London - I was around for his last term).

I think all three of them are extremely intelligent, consistently clear-headed, and often right. But none of them are especially well-liked. Obama is charismatic, but only for the duration of the time he's speaking. And all of them had a problem of trying to figure out how to get into the right conversations with their fellow politicians.

I think what all three of them have in common, and what has lended each of them a similar public opinion, is that they are long-term thinkers. They did things that are intended to benefit us down the line, more than right this second.

That is not a popular thing in modern politics. It makes it harder for them to be effective, and it makes it harder for them to get the public on board. People want to see it now - and if it all goes to hell 10 year down the line, they really don't care. As long as they get results now.

I think it's a failing of the public's thinking, more than a failing of those particular politicians.

How does killing jobs benefit us in the long term?
 
She's as good of a nomination as any other GOP candidate at this point. There really isn't one strong GOP candidate that I have seen.
 
How does killing jobs benefit us in the long term?

To blame this on Obama, when the majority of it economic efforts have been blocked by the GOP, is a bit of a laugh.
 
To blame this on Obama, when the majority of it economic efforts have been blocked by the GOP, is a bit of a laugh.

Which economic efforts were blocked by the GOP?
 
I see in Obama's public image the same thing I see in Carter's, or Ken Livingston's (former mayor of London - I was around for his last term).

I think all three of them are extremely intelligent, consistently clear-headed, and often right. But none of them are especially well-liked. Obama is charismatic, but only for the duration of the time he's speaking. And all of them had a problem of trying to figure out how to get into the right conversations with their fellow politicians.

I think what all three of them have in common, and what has lended each of them a similar public opinion, is that they are long-term thinkers. They did things that are intended to benefit us down the line, more than right this second.

That is not a popular thing in modern politics. It makes it harder for them to be effective, and it makes it harder for them to get the public on board. People want to see it now - and if it all goes to hell 10 year down the line, they really don't care. As long as they get results now.

I think it's a failing of the public's thinking, more than a failing of those particular politicians.

The public's failure to live up to the expectations of that triumvirate of great thinkers, Obama, Carter and Livingstone, must be frustrating. They are all so brilliant that their policies, and successes, are virtually interchangeable,
 
The public's failure to live up to the expectations of that triumvirate of great thinkers, Obama, Carter and Livingstone, must be frustrating. They are all so brilliant that their policies, and successes, are virtually interchangeable,

Damn! That's heavy duty! :rofl

I'm laughing at the Leftists so hard, I can't finish my beer. Thanks!!
 
To blame this on Obama, when the majority of it economic efforts have been blocked by the GOP, is a bit of a laugh.

Didn't, until early this year, the Dems control the Senate and House as well as the Presidency? Which economic initiatives do you feel the GOP blocked that would have led to greater national prosperity?
 
Didn't, until early this year, the Dems control the Senate and House as well as the Presidency? Which economic initiatives do you feel the GOP blocked that would have led to greater national prosperity?

She knows there aren't any. O'Bama got everything he wanted.
 
Back
Top Bottom