• 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

roughdraft274 said:
If you're that sure you should really go to in-trade and bet against Obama. You could sell your house and put your life savings up there because its a sure thing. Go for it...
Click to expand...

So...tell us, what's O'Bama going to run on?
 
apdst said:
So...tell us, what's O'Bama going to run on?
Click to expand...

If against Bachmann? Living on planet Earth. We'd be happy if you came to join us, by the way.
 
apdst said:
If you think O'Bama has a snowball's chance in hell of even getting re-elected, regardless of who he runs against, it shows how hyperpartisan you are.
Click to expand...

Show me the thread where I said Obama could be re-elected regardless of who he runs against?

Against a Palin / Bachmann, yes he would win.

Don't twist the words of others, just back up your own.
 
Crosscheck said:
Show me the thread where I said Obama could be re-elected regardless of who he runs against?

Against a Palin / Bachmann, yes he would win.

Don't twist the words of others, just back up your own.
Click to expand...

Ok...what's he going to run on?
 
Deuce said:
If against Bachmann? Living on planet Earth. We'd be happy if you came to join us, by the way.
Click to expand...

I'm already here, because I know that O'Bama is out.
 
digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...

IMO, he is very intelligent. I believe his biggest weakness is that he may lack the ability to align support behind his vision (or at least parts of it where common ground is possible). He is a charismatic speaker. However, when it comes to translating vision into policy, he has not been able to transcend partisan rivalries to focus on identifying and leveraging common ground. In contrast, President Clinton through triangulation was able to do that and criticism of that approach notwithstanding, it was a brilliant strategy for dealing with a divided Washington. Hence, after a rocky start, he could point to various policy successes. That credit was shared with the Republican congress is less important than the fact that concrete policy outcomes were achieved.

Another issue that confronts President Obama is that perhaps he is overanalytical. That comes across as hesitation. During crises, that can be a liability. Then, a leader needs to be decisive. He/she needs to be able to try to impose a sense of order on the turmoil when information is incomplete.

When one steps back to look at the big picture, one sees an economic recovery that has been relatively jobless to date (meaning the unemployment rate has remained persistently high). That President Obama undertook two rounds of stimulus (2009 and late 2010) is largely lost in what seems to be a decided lack of ongoing action and sluggish economic growth. A similar dynamic is at play in the ongoing debt ceiling negotiations. I agree with President Obama's delegating leadership for the talks to Vice President Biden. I don't believe it is helpful if the President is involved in day-to-day negotiations, as it risks squandering his political capital and diverting attention from other matters. Where I think President Obama has erred is in not making a regular and forceful case for his vision of fiscal consolidation. As a result, Republicans have been arguing that he is detached from the issue and has no ideas of his own. That the U.S. lacked a coherent framework for dealing with possible political change in the Middle East and took an overly idealistic approach that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute could rapidly be resolved (despite vast differences between the parties and the historic pace of progress) and has responded in a largely reactive fashion to events has also created perceptual problems. Barring appreciable progress on the economic, fiscal, and foreign policy fronts, there is a risk that the perception that President Obama has lost control of events could take hold.

IMO, President Carter truly lost control of events and was properly viewed as ineffective. President Obama is not in such a position at this time. However, should his Administration continue to display little decisiveness and a continuing inability to reach necessary policy agreements, most important of which would provide realistic opportunity for a more vigorous economic rebound, President Obama will risk being defined as a 21st century version of President Carter. The public elects leaders to address problems. By the 2012 election, the public will be less interested in the narrative of the 2007-09 financial crisis/severe recession and much more interested in ongoing job creation and prospects for a more robust and sustained recovery going forward. The public won't be interested in stories about the past. It will be focused on a path to a better future.

Of course, if the Republicans nominate a candidate with below average communications ability, a perspective that is beyond what the public would tolerate, and/or an inability to rally the public behind his/her vision, then President Obama could still be re-elected. Then, barring a return to recession or some other crisis, the public could find political risk avoidance preferable to an unsatisfactory economic status quo. If the Republicans engineer what would be a self-inflicted debt crisis or recession related to a breakdown in the debt ceiling talks (something I don't believe is likely), then prospects for a Republican victory in 2012 would be significantly dimmer.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
So...tell us, what's O'Bama going to run on?
Click to expand...

American car companies are becoming profitable again where as republicans by in large wanted them to file bankruptcy

No longer having a free falling economy losing 700000 jobs a month as it was when he first took over. The economy is showing signs of progress and hopefully will continue

Troops coming home from Iraq.

Excellent results in the wars, the killing of OBL, something of which he was absolutely correct on during the campaign

healthcare bill is becoming more popular as people are finding out that there aren't death panels

dont ask dont tell

etc. etc.

I know nothing will make you happy, and I don't think everything in the economy is just peachy but when I ask myself am I personally better off than I was when he took over it's an easy yes. When he took over my company had just had a round of layoffs and every plant and engineering firm that we work with just about had laid off people. Now many of them are hiring again. I went from being scare of being laid off to having more work then I know what to do with.
 
roughdraft274 said:
American car companies are becoming profitable again where as republicans by in large wanted them to file bankruptcy

No longer having a free falling economy losing 700000 jobs a month as it was when he first took over. The economy is showing signs of progress and hopefully will continue

Troops coming home from Iraq.

Excellent results in the wars, the killing of OBL, something of which he was absolutely correct on during the campaign

healthcare bill is becoming more popular as people are finding out that there aren't death panels

dont ask dont tell

etc. etc.

I know nothing will make you happy, and I don't think everything in the economy is just peachy but when I ask myself am I personally better off than I was when he took over it's an easy yes. When he took over my company had just had a round of layoffs and every plant and engineering firm that we work with just about had laid off people. Now many of them are hiring again. I went from being scare of being laid off to having more work then I know what to do with.
Click to expand...

The same car company whose CEO wanted to raise gas taxes by a buck?

Unemployment finally bottomed out. Um...ok.

We're not only still in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we're in Libya now, too.

Excellant results in the wars, that started taking place under Bush and because of a continuance of Bush's polices has gotten better.

Obamacare? I seriously doubt that's going to be part of his platform. :rofl

At the end of the day, he's going to hang his hat on killing UBL and repealing DADT? :lamo
 
apdst said:
Ok...what's he going to run on?
Click to expand...

"It's all Bush's fault"......


BTW, isn't it wonderful how the liberals, and those libs afraid to actually announce "liberal" in their "lean" heading, all like to tell us who we should pick....It really is a joke.


j-mac
 
apdst said:
The same car company whose CEO wanted to raise gas taxes by a buck?
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with whether they're profitable or not. Just goes to show how your mind works. Can't argue against something? Change the subject! So obvious...
 
roughdraft274 said:
That has nothing to do with whether they're profitable or not. Just goes to show how your mind works. Can't argue against something? Change the subject! So obvious...
Click to expand...

Ford is profitable, but that's about it.

You can't inject government money to bail out a company, then declare that it's suddenly profitable.
 
BDBoop said:
So once the Republicans take the Oval Office, everything will be improved within the following eighteen months.
Click to expand...

Oh of course, just like the recent 'tsunami' elections. Welllll....to be honest they did get some of those 'emergency' legislation passed, like the voter id law for phantom reasons only available in conservative minds, the get between you and your doctor abortion restrictions, the dismantling of working Americans right to organize. Jobs and economy, not so much. Though there was a lot of strutting barnyard rooster posturing.
 
shades said:
was also very true of Obama, but he got in, so lets just watch and see
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. Compare several Obama statements, and Bachmann statements, and you will clearly see who is crazy, and it aint the black guy.
 
danarhea said:
I know why you want Bachman to do well. Because you want someone who Obama will hand her ass to. LOL.
Click to expand...

Do you really think so? Is there nobody in that party who stands a chance? People really like her. I mean - nobody I know. In fact, my daughter thanked me for the laugh when I linked her to the MB statements page. But she could win, couldn't she?
 
American said:
I don't know, I think she has a presence. But I don't really know her beyond that. What I find stupid, is the out right arrogance from those on the left who think THEIR candidate is any good at all. They're only concerned with winning, and not with proper governing of this country. Obama sucks ****, he is horrible. He may very well win, and we'll get more of this that we have now. It sickens me when I see the arrogance abound from the left because they are so sure they'll win, and every GOP candidate is of course a bumpkin. But what have we gotten for all the powerful Harvard qualifications. We got an empty suit, nothing more.

I don't know which GOP candidate I like yet.
Click to expand...

.... The last 4 GOP Presidents have been bumpkins... they're depended on the bumpkin image and the bumpkin vote... what else would you call them dear?
 
donsutherland1 said:
IMO, he is very intelligent. I believe his biggest weakness is that he may lack the ability to align support behind his vision (or at least parts of it where common ground is possible).
Click to expand...

He cannot gain support for his vision because it's quite at variance with the great majority of the American people, Thus he had to make his vision as vague as possible during the campaign, while appearing fiscally responsible, in order to win. And it was a great campaign as the independents bought into it.
He is a charismatic speaker.
Click to expand...

I don't think that holds true any longer and was surprised when some thought he was. He has the same moves all the time and it got old three months after the election.
However, when it comes to translating vision into policy, he has not been able to transcend partisan rivalries to focus on identifying and leveraging common ground.
Click to expand...

I think that's largely because his ideologies don't share much common ground with the majority of the American people.

In contrast, President Clinton through triangulation was able to do that and criticism of that approach notwithstanding, it was a brilliant strategy for dealing with a divided Washington. Hence, after a rocky start, he could point to various policy successes. That credit was shared with the Republican congress is less important than the fact that concrete policy outcomes were achieved.
Click to expand...

Yes, Clinton was a smart politician and his policies, despite some differences, usually coincided with the ideas of the American people. That is not the case with Obama.

Another issue that confronts President Obama is that perhaps he is overanalytical. That comes across as hesitation. During crises, that can be a liability. Then, a leader needs to be decisive. He/she needs to be able to try to impose a sense of order on the turmoil when information is incomplete.
Click to expand...

There is no question that he is indecisive but we could not realistically expect more from him, given his lack of experience. He cannot be faulted for traits he did not bring to the table.
When one steps back to look at the big picture, one sees an economic recovery that has been relatively jobless to date (meaning the unemployment rate has remained persistently high). That President Obama undertook two rounds of stimulus (2009 and late 2010) is largely lost in what seems to be a decided lack of ongoing action and sluggish economic growth. A similar dynamic is at play in the ongoing debt ceiling negotiations. I agree with President Obama's delegating leadership for the talks to Vice President Biden. I don't believe it is helpful if the President is involved in day-to-day negotiations, as it risks squandering his political capital and diverting attention from other matters. Where I think President Obama has erred is in not making a regular and forceful case for his vision of fiscal consolidation. As a result, Republicans have been arguing that he is detached from the issue and has no ideas of his own. That the U.S. lacked a coherent framework for dealing with possible political change in the Middle East and took an overly idealistic approach that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute could rapidly be resolved (despite vast differences between the parties and the historic pace of progress) and has responded in a largely reactive fashion to events has also created perceptual problems. Barring appreciable progress on the economic, fiscal, and foreign policy fronts, there is a risk that the perception that President Obama has lost control of events could take hold.
Click to expand...

Obama has tended to create controversy where there was no need to do so. He should learn the value of silence.

IMO, President Carter truly lost control of events and was properly viewed as ineffective. President Obama is not in such a position at this time. However, should his Administration continue to display little decisiveness and a continuing inability to reach necessary policy agreements, most important of which would provide realistic opportunity for a more vigorous economic rebound, President Obama will risk being defined as a 21st century version of President Carter. The public elects leaders to address problems. By the 2012 election, the public will be less interested in the narrative of the 2007-09 financial crisis/severe recession and much more interested in ongoing job creation and prospects for a more robust and sustained recovery going forward. The public won't be interested in stories about the past. It will be focused on a path to a better future.
Click to expand...

A debate has already been going on as to who is worse, Obama or Carter, but will not fully flower until after the next presidential election.
Of course, if the Republicans nominate a candidate with below average communications ability, a perspective that is beyond what the public would tolerate, and/or an inability to rally the public behind his/her vision, then President Obama could still be re-elected. Then, barring a return to recession or some other crisis, the public could find political risk avoidance preferable to an unsatisfactory economic status quo. If the Republicans engineer what would be a self-inflicted debt crisis or recession related to a breakdown in the debt ceiling talks (something I don't believe is likely), then prospects for a Republican victory in 2012 would be significantly dimmer.
Click to expand...

I cannot see Obama doing in one year what he has failed to do in three, even when he had control over the House and Senate.
 
apdst said:
Ford is profitable, but that's about it.

You can't inject government money to bail out a company, then declare that it's suddenly profitable.
Click to expand...

Give me a few billion dollars and I can show a profit too.
 
Hatuey said:
.... The last 4 GOP Presidents have been bumpkins... they're depended on the bumpkin image and the bumpkin vote... what else would you call them dear?
Click to expand...

Yes, anyone who isn't a Liberal must be a bumpkin.

The non-elitist left tells it like it is.
 
MistressNomad said:
Why are only the most shameful of Minnesota politicians involved in this one? Man...

She thinks global warming is a hoax, wants to teach creationism in schools, supports a constitutional ban on SSM (she even goes as far as to call being gay a "sexual disorder"), and thinks we should consider going nuclear with Iran.

She is insane to the point of delusion, and she was one of the early warning signs of the GOP going off the rails.

Seriously, yeah, I'm a liberal, but I don't mind conservatives. Really. It's just that people like her are not "conservatives." They're insane. Real conservatives are abandoning the GOP like a sinking ship in embarrassment. People like Bachmann are the reason why.
Click to expand...

Localized Localized Global warming is very real but it's our role in it that is a HOAX. Two years ago the ARMY research office said that 86% of any change was do to the sun which is no near the peak of an 11 year cycle of increased activity, then we have buts claiming that the heating of the Pacific Ocean in cakes by us. Fact is when El Nino comes it's because deep heating in the depths and it caused by heat from volcanic activity deep in the Ocean.

ElNino cause storms and the nuts say global warming. What a bunch of maroons.

Michelle is at this point different and would like so see more.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Bachwoman can go suck my noodle. Horrible candidate.
Click to expand...

Would you have any difficulty in offering the same invitation to BachMan?

It seems political discourse in the United States is ever declining and this is what people come to expect. Their curent leadership demonstrates this.
 
Grant said:
Yes, anyone who isn't a Liberal must be a bumpkin.

The non-elitist left tells it like it is.
Click to expand...

He didn't say that. Right-wing absolutism rears its head yet again!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom