• 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!

What Did You Think Of This Question?

What did you think of the question?

  • Total voters
    44
Ordinarily I would call such a question posed to a female candidate as inappropriate and sexist. However, when a female candidate for president is on record stating that women should be submissive to their husbands, the question is not only appropriate, it is positively required.

And she dodged the answer.
 
DiAnna said:
Ordinarily I would call such a question posed to a female candidate as inappropriate and sexist. However, when a female candidate for president is on record stating that women should be submissive to their husbands, the question is not only appropriate, it is positively required.

And she dodged the answer.
Click to expand...

Of course she did. Her religious base would be furious if she refuted and the rest of the country would think she was crazy if she didn't.

It doesn't say much for her honesty though.
 
megaprogman said:
If some male candidate came from a belief system that was matriarchal, and he was asked, would it be sexist?
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. If a male candidate for president was on record as stating that he believed males should be submissive to their wives, then it's fair to say that the American voters would want to know exactly who would be making the decisions in the whitehouse... the candidate or the candidate's wife.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
They could have worded the question differently, then, and subverted this whole fallback.

Simply for the fact that she's a successful political figure - and she's female - obviously she's not cleaving to any 'traditional/old fashioned submission' - nor is Palin.
Click to expand...

That is I think where I am falling on this. It's not that there is anything inherently wrong with the question, but lord it could have been done better, and probably should have been saved for a different setting. Asking her about her original comment and how being submissive would effect her as president would have been a lot more palatable.
 
Redress said:
That is I think where I am falling on this. It's not that there is anything inherently wrong with the question, but lord it could have been done better, and probably should have been saved for a different setting. Asking her about her original comment and how being submissive would effect her as president would have been a lot more palatable.
Click to expand...

so, you think the question should have been made into a softball
i disagree

this question was as legitimate - and appropriate - as asking JFK, if he were to be elected president, and as a faithful catholic, would he subordinate his decisions to those of the pope

that is information an informed voter would want to know

just as we should want to know whether bachmann as president (perish the thought) would subordinate her decisions once again to those of her gay converting spouse

by her previous public statements, bachmann brought the need for such a question upon herself
 
justabubba said:
so, you think the question should have been made into a softball
i disagree

this question was as legitimate - and appropriate - as asking JFK, if he were to be elected president, and as a faithful catholic, would he subordinate his decisions to those of the pope

that is information an informed voter would want to know

just as we should want to know whether bachmann as president (perish the thought) would subordinate her decisions once again to those of her gay converting spouse

by her previous public statements, bachmann brought the need for such a question upon herself
Click to expand...

No, I think the question should have been given in context and with a touch of respect.
 
justabubba said:
so, you think the question should have been made into a softball
i disagree

this question was as legitimate - and appropriate - as asking JFK, if he were to be elected president, and as a faithful catholic, would he subordinate his decisions to those of the pope

that is information an informed voter would want to know

just as we should want to know whether bachmann as president (perish the thought) would subordinate her decisions once again to those of her gay converting spouse

by her previous public statements, bachmann brought the need for such a question upon herself
Click to expand...

Public debates aren't about providing information, nor do they even try. They're about attacking your opponent, because attacking gives results....and of course station ratings.

All things being equal, if you can make your opponent look angrier and more partisan then yourself, you win, regardless of your party or your positions on various policy.
 
Redress said:
No, I think the question should have been given in context and with a touch of respect.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that would have created the emotional charge required to keep viewers tuned in.

IMO the question, as delivered, did a good job of calling back to Leftist fears of religion being inserted into law, and of Feminists seeing this candidate as a threat to ending women's suffrage.

It would seem the result, if not the original purpose of this debate was to paint all candidates in a negative light and give political ammunition to President Obama (should he choose to run) in future debates and adds.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Public debates aren't about providing information, nor do they even try. They're about attacking your opponent, because attacking gives results....and of course station ratings.

All things being equal, if you can make your opponent look angrier and more partisan then yourself, you win, regardless of your party or your positions on various policy.
Click to expand...

you have mistaken the strategy of those asking the debate questions with that of the debate participants
 
Redress said:
During the republican debate this week, Michelle Bachmann was asked the following:



Her answer, in part:



This question has raised a firestorm over whether it was fair or appropriate. It came about from this comment she made where she said that she finished her degree because her husband told her so and women are supposed to be submissive to their husbands(can't find quote at the moment, if any one else can, will edit it in and give credit).

So, we the question fair? Was it appropriate? Was it sexist? You can choose more than one.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't care.
That's mostly because Bachmann should never be seriously considered as a real contender for president.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Personally, I don't care.
That's mostly because Bachmann should never be seriously considered as a real contender for president.
Click to expand...

She could stare down other nations with her crazy eyes. The diplomatic results would be amazing.
 
megaprogman said:
She could stare down other nations with her crazy eyes. The diplomatic results would be amazing.
Click to expand...

Bachmannderp.jpg


:2razz:
 
She will never be seriously be considered for President, and not based on this incident. There are plenty of others that disqualify her.

In any case... the question was ultimately relevant. I'd like to know if a Presidential candidate bows to male authority or not. As the top authority in the country, would she delegate her decision making to men around her by virtue of them being men, or because she is intelligently weighing critical factors in her decision making?
 
It is not a question that I would have asked, but I don't have a problem with the question. She answered it. Much ado about nothing.
 
LesGovt said:
It is not a question that I would have asked, but I don't have a problem with the question. She answered it. Much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...

actually, she avoided it
 
LesGovt said:
No, she answered it. Some may not like her answer, but she addressed the issue.
Click to expand...

Actually she did avoid it. She mentioned that "part" of the meaning of submission is respect, which did not answer the question.
 
justabubba said:
[I believe] you have mistaken the strategy of those asking the debate questions with that of the debate participants
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you :2wave:

I have clarity on the situation. I can tell you that I haven't confused anyone with anyone else. It was quite clear who was who.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Actually she did avoid it. She mentioned that "part" of the meaning of submission is respect, which did not answer the question.
Click to expand...

She could have mirrored John F. Kennedy

American Rhetoric: John F. Kennedy - Q & A Session Following Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association

Skipp ahead to 16:25.

She could have answered the question better by acknowledging that while in accordance with her private, personal religious preferences, she submits to her husband on matters of the family, that it would improper for him to try and use that submission to influence her on public policy as President. Any such attempt by her husband, therefore, would be illegitimate and she would not submit to him.
 
Last edited:
If the question was asked without any background to lead to it, then I would say it was inappropriate if it was just a feeler question. Since Bachman actually made the statement...it was a appropriate to ask for a clarification.
 
This is simple. When she made the comment about being submissive, she was pandering to the religious voters. She was lying. She didn't mean it, as is clear from her record of being an independent woman in congress. Or, at least she doesn't believe women should be submissive all the time.

Politicians absolutely should be asked to clarify crap like this.

Politicians lie. That's what they do. When they're in California they speak a certain way and talk about certain issues, when they're in Iowa, they speak another way and talk about totally different issues, even if they contradict with the issues they spoke about in California. If someone calls you on it, you just float them some non-answer like "submission means respect". Really? In what dictionary? Or, you can just do what Gingrich did and chastise the person who asked you a legitimate question by declaring it a "gotcha" question. He can't keep his campaign fiscally sound, how is he supposed to keep the country fiscally sound? That's a perfectly legitimate question.

Both sides participate in this crap. You're being baffled with bull****.
 
It was a legitimate question to ask Bachmann, given her ravings. She should have answered it as well, but instead prevaricated and relied on pedantry.
 
Redress said:
So you feel it was a legitimate question to ask at the debate?
Click to expand...

nah its one of those stupid gotcha questions bubbleheaded talking heads ask in the hopes they will get some fame
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom