• 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
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.

Given that she expressed the opinion that women should be submissive to their husbands, yes, it's a totally appropriate question. Moreover, it was not answered. Were Bachman to be elected president, just who would hold the reins of power?

Given her answer, I'm still not sure, are you?
 
If you voted none, that would mean you thought it was appropriate and fair. Tough to figure out I am sure...
What's Not tough to figure out is this was another BS 'poll' which was a statement NOT a poll.

A vote for 'none' would NOT necessarily mean you thought it was fair.
You could have disliked the question for a 4th reason or had.. another opinion altogether.
It would NOT mean you thought it was an appropriate question.

ONE simple option of 4 (or 5) saying "it was proper" or "fair" would have made it a Poll, if still lopsided.
As it stands, it's a Farce and another one of those heads-I-win/Tails-you-lose 'polls'.
 
Last edited:
What's Not tough to figure out is this was another BS 'poll' which was a statement NOT a poll.

A vote for 'none' would NOT necessarily mean you thought it was fair.
You could have disliked the question for a 4th reason or had.. another opinion altogether.
It would NOT mean you thought it was an appropriate question.

ONE simple option of 4 (or 5) saying "it was proper" or "fair" would have made it a Poll, if still lopsided.
As it stands, it's a Farce and another one of those heads-I-win/Tails-you-lose 'polls'.

You are confused, and wrong, and off topic.
 
So you feel it was a legitimate question to ask at the debate?

I think it was absolutely appropriate to ask. She's given people legitimate reasons to be concerned about it. Back when Kennedy was running, people were concerned that he'd be overly open to control by the Pope. He never said anything, to my knowledge, to lead people to think that, it was simply something on people's mind. Bachmann, however, brought it up. It's entirely appropriate that people should be concerned that she might let her ridiculous religious beliefs get in the way of a potential job she might have and reject her as a candidate on that basis.
 
It was completely appropriate. She wants to be elected to lead the highest office in the United States, and she made a statement suggesting she is incapable of leading. If she considers herself intellectually at the mercy of someone who isn't even in elected office and is not aware of all the information she would be, how exactly can she lead?

If her religion goes so far as to render her own decisions worthless, then it is absolutely appropriate to ask the question of why she thinks she's able to be Commander in Chief.
 
It was completely appropriate. She wants to be elected to lead the highest office in the United States, and she made a statement suggesting she is incapable of leading. If she considers herself intellectually at the mercy of someone who isn't even in elected office and is not aware of all the information she would be, how exactly can she lead?

If her religion goes so far as to render her own decisions worthless, then it is absolutely appropriate to ask the question of why she thinks she's able to be Commander in Chief.

While I agree the question is appropriate to ask, imo the answer is obvious, so the reason to ask it anyway is simply to see how well she can vocalize the answer.

In 'traditional' Christian families, when the wife is any level of boss in her employment, she does not submit to her husband when making business decisions. POTUS is no different.

I don't think she responded very well to the question. She could have articulated this fact succinctly and used it to step off on another point.
 
While I agree the question is appropriate to ask, imo the answer is obvious, so the reason to ask it anyway is simply to see how well she can vocalize the answer.

In 'traditional' Christian families, when the wife is any level of boss in her employment, she does not submit to her husband when making business decisions. POTUS is no different.

I don't think she responded very well to the question. She could have articulated this fact succinctly and used it to step off on another point.

The question came about from her comments that her husband told her to study tax law, even though she had no interest in the subject and did not want to, but she was supposed to submit to her husband so did(paraphrase, not exact words obviously, if any one has link to actual words would appreciate it). So in fact submit to her husband in a business decision, as he chose her career for her.
 
Again, when you make your Christian faith a hallmark of your candidacy, such questions are appropriate.

I wish someone asks her about how the Bible says a woman CANNOT hold authority over a man.
 
The question came about from her comments that her husband told her to study tax law, even though she had no interest in the subject and did not want to, but she was supposed to submit to her husband so did(paraphrase, not exact words obviously, if any one has link to actual words would appreciate it). So in fact submit to her husband in a business decision, as he chose her career for her.


Foxnews and others are trying to portray it as not being subservient...how is not ? if she didnt want to do it and did it because her husband wanted her too...frankly my wife wouldve slapped me around and told me to get lost if I tried that on her
 
While I agree the question is appropriate to ask, imo the answer is obvious, so the reason to ask it anyway is simply to see how well she can vocalize the answer.

In 'traditional' Christian families, when the wife is any level of boss in her employment, she does not submit to her husband when making business decisions. POTUS is no different.

I don't think she responded very well to the question. She could have articulated this fact succinctly and used it to step off on another point.

She could have. Instead, she chose to step around the question and not give it a direct answer.

So, would she be the submissive wife as POTUS or not? Since she didn't answer, one is lead to believe that she might.
 
you want to ignore that bachmann's own statements provoked the question

she publicly admitted that she did not want to pursue the study of tax law
but she acquiesced to her husband's desire that she undertake such a curriculum
what other major matters would she defer to her husband's position instead of her own, if - may God help us - she were elected to the presidency?

I "want to ignore" it? I said "I cant see how anyone can be UPSET about the question. If a candidate makes religion a focal point of their personality, then people have the right to ask to what level that applies" yet I want to ignore it? How about a little more honest response...you want to pretend I said something I didnt because...heck...I dont know...this mindless knee-jerk need you have to be contrary.
 
Hey, in 2008 when Obama campaigned, stating that Rev. Wright was like a father to him, and quoting his own book where he said Rev Wright was the most influential man in his life, people took a hard look at Rev. Wright's controversial teachings and went, "whoa!" Questions about Wright's anti-white views were posed to Obama, as they should have been. Obama was not happy about that, but tough noogies. People had a right to know what he thought, and whether Wright's views would be taken into the whitehouse. People have the same right to know about Bachmann, when her campaign rhetoric is controversial to a lot of voters.

Same thing, same ****.
 
While I agree the question is appropriate to ask, imo the answer is obvious, so the reason to ask it anyway is simply to see how well she can vocalize the answer.

In 'traditional' Christian families, when the wife is any level of boss in her employment, she does not submit to her husband when making business decisions. POTUS is no different.

I don't think she responded very well to the question. She could have articulated this fact succinctly and used it to step off on another point.

...Except for the fact that her act of submission was in direct relation to her employment. So, obviously, she DOES submit to her husband when making business decisions - up to and including what her business should be. That's why it's a relevant question.
 
The question came about from her comments that her husband told her to study tax law, even though she had no interest in the subject and did not want to, but she was supposed to submit to her husband so did(paraphrase, not exact words obviously, if any one has link to actual words would appreciate it). So in fact submit to her husband in a business decision, as he chose her career for her.

Without supporting or defending their marital dynamic of submitting, I think there's a difference between choosing a career path, and making decisions within that career path.

This isn't a uniquely Christian dynamic, either. When I was 16 my father told me to go to a particular fast-food restaurant (because they were hiring) and apply. So I did. Once hired I quickly became a supervisor (mostly because I know how to show up, on time, and sober, lol). While my father told me to enter this business field, he did not then micromanage that business through me, even thoe as his minor child I was morally (and in some ways legally) obligated to 'submit' to him.

Guiding a spouse into a career field they would excel in is related to the marital relationship, while specific business decisions made in the office are not.

I would like to know if there's a history of her husband making specific business decisions, ie micro-managing her office, through her; running her office through her.
 
Last edited:
Again, when you make your Christian faith a hallmark of your candidacy, such questions are appropriate.

I wish someone asks her about how the Bible says a woman CANNOT hold authority over a man.

Passage?


..........................
 
She could have. Instead, she chose to step around the question and not give it a direct answer.

So, would she be the submissive wife as POTUS or not? Since she didn't answer, one is lead to believe that she might.

As a wife, I believe she would be.

The roll of the President is not the roll of "wife", however, so there is no submissive mandate.
 
Without supporting or defending their marital dynamic of submitting, I think there's a difference between choosing a career path, and making decisions within that career path.

This isn't a uniquely Christian dynamic, either. When I was 16 my father told me to go to a particular fast-food restaurant (because they were hiring) and apply. So I did. Once hired I quickly became a supervisor (mostly because I know how to show up, on time, and sober, lol). While my father told me to enter this business field, he did not then micromanage that business through me, even thoe as his minor child I was morally (and in some ways legally) obligated to 'submit' to him.

Guiding a spouse into a career field they would excel in is related to the marital relationship, while specific business decisions made in the office are not.

I would like to know if there's a history of her husband making business decisions through her; running her office through her.

There's a world of difference between telling your minor child to get a fast food job, simply because they happen to be hiring and your father probably wanted you to learn how to manage a paycheck, and telling a grown woman what to do with tens of thousands of dollars and the next 15 years of her life.

If she is willing to do that simply because her husband ordered her to, then I think it is beyond doubt she would make a decision within that business simply because he ordered her to. Whether or not he does is another question, but her willingness to do pretty much anything simply because she's been ordered to is concerning.
 
...Except for the fact that her act of submission was in direct relation to her employment. So, obviously, she DOES submit to her husband when making business decisions - up to and including what her business should be. That's why it's a relevant question.

I don't share your assumption. I see a clear and distinct line separating the 2 rolls, though I agree she didn't answer the question very well at all.
 
I don't share your assumption. I see a clear and distinct line separating the 2 rolls, though I agree she didn't answer the question very well at all.

It's not an assumption. She flat-out said that she decided what business to go into because her husband ordered her to. No need for assumptions when she said it in plain English.
 
1st Timothy 2:12

"I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man".

If Michelle Bachmann is a Catholic, I can see the concern; though even the Catholic church is allowing women bishops now.

If Michelle Bachmann is a Protestant, there is no conflict as we Protestants see the matter a bit differently.
 
It's not an assumption. She flat-out said that she decided what business to go into because her husband ordered her to. No need for assumptions when she said it in plain English.

which is far more than she did in response to the question.
 
There's a world of difference between telling your minor child to get a fast food job, simply because they happen to be hiring and your father probably wanted you to learn how to manage a paycheck, and telling a grown woman what to do with tens of thousands of dollars and the next 15 years of her life.

If she is willing to do that simply because her husband ordered her to, then I think it is beyond doubt she would make a decision within that business simply because he ordered her to. Whether or not he does is another question, but her willingness to do pretty much anything simply because she's been ordered to is concerning.

The words you choose hint that you don't understand the Christian view of submission in the first place, to then pose an informed objection. To me it sounds like you're rebounding this story off of America's history of woman's suffrage and Liberal Feminism rather than the biblical standard for establishing legitimacy of a woman's authority.

As Queen Elizabeth demonstrated, women do not need men in order for their authority to be legitimate.
 
The words you choose hint that you don't understand the Christian view of submission in the first place, to then pose an informed objection. To me it sounds like you're rebounding this story off of America's history of woman's suffrage and Liberal Feminism rather than the biblical standard for establishing legitimacy of a woman's authority.

As Queen Elizabeth demonstrated, women do not need men in order for their authority to be legitimate.

Of course they don't. But according to some interpretations of the Bible, they do. Whether or not this is reflected in reality makes no difference to whether or not people believe it.

Is that not, in fact, exactly what she said she did? Did she not, in fact, say that she chose her specific career, which she didn't want, because her husband told her to? Is that not, in fact, the only reason she gave?

It doesn't matter what your entirely subjective, and in this case, apologetic interpretation of the Bible is. She said what she said. She did not want to be a tax lawyer, in fact she hated the idea. But she did it because her husband told her to. That is what she said. I don't need to "understand" anything about your apologetics to understand what she said.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom