• 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!

seriously, michele bachmann?

CriticalThought said:
I hope she wins the whole damn thing. Nothing would put an end to two party politics faster than having someone as crazy as her for president.
Click to expand...

Unless of course the two parties are making a third party holding real power impossible.
 
Henrin said:
You are better than this nonsense.
Click to expand...

What did people like about Bush? In fact, what was the ONLY thing most people liked about Bush?

He seems like he's be fun to have a beer with.

What is the campaign slogan of pretty much every GOP candidate these days? "I'm just your average Joe."

All Bachmann is doing is taking that another couple steps further.

People don't like "exceptional" in the political arena anymore. With his CNN English and his fancy degree and his way-too-long explanations of policy. What, do they think they're better than us? That is what Bachmann panders to.

Yeah, well, your average Joe has a middle-school literacy level, can't really do algebra, and doesn't know what year the Revolutionary war started.

I don't want average Joe. I want exceptional. I want our best and our brightest. I want someone who could wipe the floor with me.

Not someone who would probably score lower on a basic civics test than I would.
 
Last edited:
BDBoop said:
Then I suggest you start doing some research. Because as of yesterday, I was in complete agreement on the "She's a joke" bandwagon.
Click to expand...

Pfft. Yeah, I'd better pick up a copy of Rolling Stone and bone up. :roll:
 
MistressNomad said:
What did people like about Bush? In fact, what was the ONLY thing most people liked about Bush?

He seems like he's be fun to have a beer with.
Click to expand...

Oversimplification of the century.
 
Jeezy said:
Oversimplification of the century.
Click to expand...

Sure. But do consider he was the least popular president... ever. And yet most people will say, "Oh, but he seems really charming. I bet he'd be cool to talk to."

That's why people voted for him, even after a disastrous first term. They liked him. And they didn't care about his ability to lead.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
Sure. But do consider he was the least popular president... ever. And yet most people will say, "Oh, but he seems really charming. I bet he'd be cool to talk to."

That's why people voted for him, even after a disastrous first term. They liked him. And they didn't care about his ability to lead.
Click to expand...

I mean, he did have this little thing called a "platform" in 2000 and in 2004. Just because a candidate likes to project the public image of "guy you can have a beer with," doesn't make it the reason why people elected him. In fact, that's pretty much the equivalent of saying "People voted for Obama because he's black and black people are cool. People wanted to just chill and play basketball with him." FDR was elected because he was grandfatherly. And it's like, "Who doesn't want to sit on Grandpa's lap and eat cookies, right?"
 
What did people like about Bush? In fact, what was the ONLY thing most people liked about Bush?

He seems like he's be fun to have a beer with.
Click to expand...

MistressNomad said:
Sure. But do consider he was the least popular president... ever. And yet most people will say, "Oh, but he seems really charming. I bet he'd be cool to talk to."

That's why people voted for him, even after a disastrous first term. They liked him. And they didn't care about his ability to lead.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to jump to conclusions on why people voted for Bush and I would recommend you do the same since you appear to know little more than ridicule made up by popular culture.
 
liblady said:
Michele Bachmann's Holy War | Rolling Stone Politics



good read.
Click to expand...

If Bachman gets the nomination, the GOP is sunk in 2012. For either party to win, you must have the Independents on your side, and Independents don't like extremists, whether they are right or left. They are key to winning an election. If the GOP is smart, they will pick Jon Huntsman. The base will come around, just so that they can see Obama, who they hate, knocked off, and the Independents, and even a few Democrats, will vote for him, because of his pragmatism.
 
Jeezy said:
I mean, he did have this little thing called a "platform" in 2000 and in 2004. Just because a candidate likes to project the public image of "guy you can have a beer with," doesn't make it the reason why people elected him. In fact, that's pretty much the equivalent of saying "People voted for Obama because he's black and black people are cool. People wanted to just chill and play basketball with him." FDR was elected because he was grandfatherly. And it's like, "Who doesn't want to sit on Grandpa's lap and eat cookies, right?"
Click to expand...

Bachmann has a platform too. But it's completely at odds with her record, and it's not all that important to a lot of people. In today's media, your platform doesn't matter. Your persona matters. Gore was boring to listen to. Kerry was made of wood. The fact that Bush managed to make a mess of his first term and had pretty poor approval ratings by the end of it still didn't end his campaign. Because he was "your average Joe."

Ya know, honestly, I'm sure there are black people who voted for Obama because he's black. I'm sure there are Christians who voted for Bush because he was so bold about his religion.

Neither matters in their ability to lead.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
I'm not going to jump to conclusions on why people voted for Bush and I would recommend you do the same since you appear to know little more than ridicule made up by popular culture.
Click to expand...

Well, a lot of the people I know who voted for Bush didn't vote because of his issues. And of course, anytime it's something you don't like it's "popular culture."
 
Jeezy said:
Pfft. Yeah, I'd better pick up a copy of Rolling Stone and bone up. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yeah, because I didn't just find this thread as opposed to researching from google.news. :roll:
 
MistressNomad said:
Bachmann has a platform too. In today's media, your platform doesn't matter. Your persona matters. Gore was boring to listen to. Kerry was made of wood.
Click to expand...

:roll:

MistressNomad said:
The fact that he managed to make a mess of his first term and had pretty poor approval ratings by the end of it still didn't end his campaign. Because he was "your average Joe."
Click to expand...

He was polling at around 50% by the end of the first term. Right where Obama is.

People still saw things his way, more or less. Doesn't have anything to do with his beer-having image.

MistressNomad said:
Ya know, honestly, I'm sure there are black people who voted for Obama because he's black. I'm sure there are Christians who voted for Bush because he was so bold about his religion.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure they're out there too. But just because something like that is present, does not mean it is sufficient -- it's supplemental. Nobody runs on just "image." If they did, Bachmann might have been ahead a long time ago.

As it stands, she is not leading in any major poll since November. Her "surge" is pretty much limited to front-loading Iowa, which is what candidates do when they think they have no chance.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
Well, a lot of the people I know who voted for Bush didn't vote because of his issues. And of course, anytime it's something you don't like it's "popular culture."
Click to expand...

I don't see what "people you know" have to do with this. Bachmann is from your state. It's really no one's fault that you're from her neck of the woods.
 
danarhea said:
If Bachman gets the nomination, the GOP is sunk in 2012. For either party to win, you must have the Independents on your side, and Independents don't like extremists, whether they are right or left. They are key to winning an election. If the GOP is smart, they will pick Jon Huntsman. The base will come around, just so that they can see Obama, who they hate, knocked off, and the Independents, and even a few Democrats, will vote for him, because of his pragmatism.
Click to expand...

i don't know anything about huntsman yet, but i do know the gop needs to cut bachmann off at the knees, for their own sake.
 
You have a bad habit of using emoji to sort of skirt around being opening antagonistic while making no point whatsoever. Bet it's saved you from lots of red cards.

I really doubt that. There was an additional factor with Bush - heavy-handed scare-mongering and 2 wars (which most Americans remained gravely mis-informed about up until mid-way through his second term). Had he not had the boogie man on his side, I doubt he'd have won. Though having a completely cardboard opponent probably doesn't help - since that's it seems like people pay attention to.

I'm not saying I think Bachmann is a shoe-in for the nomination by any stretch. But I'm certainly not going to write her off, and I'm not going to ignore her. She panders to the loudest and least educated demographic in the country. They may not be a majority but they are getting bigger, and I think ignoring her is a mistake, and laughing at her is an even bigger mistake.
 
Jeezy said:
I don't see what "people you know" have to do with this. Bachmann is from your state. It's really no one's fault that you're from her neck of the woods.
Click to expand...

Huh?

He asked me to ask Bush supporters. I have. What's your problem? :shrug:
 
MistressNomad said:
Well, a lot of the people I know who voted for Bush didn't vote because of his issues. And of course, anytime it's something you don't like it's "popular culture."
Click to expand...

The opposite side always comes up with lame little reasons for why the other side voted in who they did. The truth is that many people vote people in because of issues that they agree with or will further their cause. While it might true that some people vote in people because they speak well, or they are the same color or they like beer, its a hard sell to say that people vote in people because they are dumb and so is the candidate like you did.
 
Henrin said:
The opposite side always comes up with lame little reasons for why the other side voted in who they did. The truth is that many people vote people in because of issues that they agree with or will further their cause. While it might true that some people dumb and vote in people because they speak well, or they are the same color or they like beer, its hard sell to say that people vote in people because they are dumb and so is the candidate like you did.
Click to expand...

Who said I'm on anyone's side? I don't use politicians as dolls.

You really wanna tell me Joe the Plumber panders to the thinking man?
 
liblady said:
i don't know anything about huntsman yet, but i do know the gop needs to cut bachmann off at the knees, for their own sake.
Click to expand...

I know that's what you are saying, but what are Liberals thinking? Let me read your mind. Interesting. Here is what I read:

Yes, Bachman, Bachman, Bachman, for the GOP nomination. BWAHAHAHAHA!!
Click to expand...

:mrgreen:
 
It's not really a problem -- just you unwilling to chalk Bush's victory up to anything other than him being an average Joe.

It's not the reason he got elected.

It's not even the main reason he got elected.

Sure, people were worried about security in 2000 and 2004. That worry, among other things, led them to believe that Bush would be the better man for the job. How true that proved to be is something else entirely, but it definitely doesn't mean that "platforms don't matter." People agreed with what Bush was saying, and he won by about the same margin that his popularity polling reflected: 50.7 to 48.3
 
danarhea said:
I know that's what you are saying, but what are Liberals thinking? Let me read your mind. Interesting. Here is what I read:



:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Don't laugh. It makes her turn into the Hulk. She feeds on being intellectually humiliated.
 
Jeezy said:
It's not really a problem -- just you unwilling to chalk Bush's victory up to anything other than him being an average Joe.

It's not the reason he got elected.

It's not even the main reason he got elected.

Sure, people were worried about security in 2000 and 2004. That worry, among other things, led them to believe that Bush would be the better man for the job. How true that proved to be is something else entirely, but it definitely doesn't mean that "platforms don't matter." People agreed with what Bush was saying, and he won by about the same margin that his popularity polling reflected: 50.7 to 48.3
Click to expand...

You're assuming most of them bothered to pay much attention to what he was saying. A lot of them still believed Hussein was involved in 9/11 and that's why we went into Iraq well into the aught's. If they did vote on the issues, they did so in blind, unresearched faith.

His message was unimportant. What was important was the psychology underneath it. And that he did well (well... he didn't... but his cabinet did).

Bachmann is working on psychology, too.
 
MistressNomad said:
You're assuming most of them bothered to pay much attention to what he was saying. A lot of them still believed Hussein was involved in 9/11 and that's why we went into Iraq well into the aught's. If they did vote on the issues, they did so in blind, unresearched faith.
Click to expand...

They did pay attention to what he was saying. And they thought it was correct. The idea that Saddam was behind 9/11 had nothing to do with it. They just bought into the whole idea that we need to stop "evil terrorism" everywhere, right now, by force. "Saddam acts Saddam-like, therefore he must be of the same ilk as the people who attacked us. Best thing to do is just get rid of all those types of people by force."

Seemed rational to them. That's pretty much what they thought, and that's what Bush was saying.

MistressNomad said:
His message was unimportant. What was important was the psychology underneath it. And that he did well (well... he didn't... but his cabinet did).

Bachmann is working on psychology, too.
Click to expand...

In a way. But if the psychology underneath it is important, then the message is important since it has to be constructed in such a way that most people rationalize it as the right way to go. That's just pitching, and it's what every candidate everywhere has done since the beginning of representative government.

None of that necessarily speaks to the image of the man himself, and it doesn't really mean that "image" wins. A man's personal image is just the way he personally projects himself, based on your appearance, etc. I would say that psychology beneath a platform is something else. "Having a beer" is not part of a platform, just as "tort reform" is not part of a personal image.
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
Michele Bachmann's Holy War | Rolling Stone Politics
good read.
Click to expand...

Bachmann got her original Doctorate of Jurisprudence from Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Okla.
Bachman furthered her education when she earned her degree in tax law from the College of William and Mary in Virginia. She was a federal tax litigation attorney.

She probably worked at more difficult tasks than Obama did before he became President.

I also believe anyone who has had any religious training will carry that over into how they govern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom