• 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!

Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll, keeps momentum

Does this mean to you that if Bachmann is not the nominee, Republicans are sexist?

Some? You betcha
A majority? Maybe

Like it or not, the traditional conservative view on women is barefoot and pregnant...

There is no one who attacks Conservative women more than the left wing.

Considering you and your cohorts label anything that you disagree with as "left wing", then your words dont mean much.

And yes, Conservative women often do get a hard time by the opposition.. but it is not because they are women, but because there are so few of them, that they do stick out like a sore thumb and when they come with idiotic comments on a regular basis, then well..

It is the same with Herman Cain.. he is black, and a front line conservative... a quite rare thing... but are people racists for being critical of him? of course not, not when he comes stupid comments and has bonehead policy ideas. And yes the same goes for Obama.

They have blood in their eyes and hate in their hearts whenever Palin or Bachmann are mentioned, and will attack their families and every aspect of their lives. They become, as charged, deranged.

LOL "playing victim" alert.

Palin brought her family into her political campaigning and then like it or not they are fair game. She is the one that paraded her whole family on a very constant pace at all rallies she was at. She is the one having one of her kids hold the baby.. she is the one who pushed Bristol with her big belly into the media spotlight and she is the one that got tax payers to pay for her whole family as they always travelled with her (instead of being in school....?) when she was governor of Alaska.

As for Bachmann.. her family is in no way being scrutinised as Palin's was/is. Her children are pretty non existent in the reports I have seen, which frankly is good. Sure her husband is in the spotlight, but that is a self inflicted wound.
 
Says the guy who told us "the health care bill is dead" about a month before it passed. I think you just guaranteed 4 more years.

Don't think the HCB is looking particularly promising at the moment. Still keeping the courts busy, though. Will have to wait for that final verdict....
 
Iowa straw poll means absolutely nothing. Well, it does sense give GOP runners that are on the way out a door back in, but as for giving a broad view of who will get the nomination is not very accurate. I believe Mccain came in 10th in the Iowa straw poll last year. I still firmly believe Romney will get the nomination. He is the most middle ground Republican which is exactly what the GOP needs to appeal to independent voters. If the GOP goes too far right kiss your re-election goodbye. At this point my vote is still with Obama. The GOP is becoming way too conservative for me. I could live in with a man like Romney, but as for Rick Perry and Bachmann, I would probably have to leave the country for awhile.
 
I believe this country has a problem with voting on actual facts. If a potential president has the letter D or R next to his name, it automatically disqualifies him/her from getting support from a broad range of people. Why? Because these people vote with feelings, which is very sad and a waste of vote. Many Republicans never gave Obama the light of day from the beginning. Criticizing his every move, giving Bush the credit for Osama Bin Laden, etc. No matter what Obama does, he cannot win with this somewhat average majority of people. The only way Obama could lose this upcoming election is if he loses his own parties votes. As for recent polling, I believe it shows around the 85% range that Democrats still support President Obama, which is really good news for his re-election. Im not saying your an idiot if you dont support Obama, because even myself question his actions at times, but if you truely believe ANY of the current GOP runners could do a BETTER job, you are either very well fooled or dont understand politics. Not one man in America could be running this country any faster or better than Obama right now. If the GOP wins this upcoming presidential election and democrats regain house majority, they will return the favor of completely blocking any legislation the new GOP president desires. It will become the democrats only goal to make our new president look like a failure, just as the GOP did to Obama.

This is a VERY dangerous game American politics are playing right now. This is how democracy fails and countries collapse. I am sure the Tea Party has good intentions, but right now they are killing our countries ability to govern itself. A 10% minority in the house should not have the right to block potential legislation, its a very sad and abused power which was never intended to be used in this way. Congress needs to take a good look at potentially changing the constitution to re-enforce the balance of power in the house. People are starting to find ways to abuse the constition in ways that were never intended even if it means defaulting on our debt or potentially destroying our economy to prove a political point. The president needs to have somewhat more power than he/she does these days. The president is becoming quite a non-factor these days compared to the 50's and 60's. Large corporations and lobbists are starting to turn this country into a nation of greed and I see the American dream slowly fading if things do not get changed.
 
Last edited:
I think it is very unlikely that the GOP will pick Bachmann as their candidate, but part of me hopes they do, since that would obviously lead to a devastating defeat for the GOP. I mean, the woman is literally insane. Not just like the standard sort of insane you find on the right wing. Literally, clinically, insane. She believes God gives her instructions. She believes that race wasn't an issue in the time of slavery. Her husband is very openly an anti-gay hatemonger and government fund embezzling quack. These aren't things I am making up or distorting, she openly says those things, and many more like them, all the time. Nominating her would be like nominating Gaddafi... So, while part of me does want the GOP to nominate her because it would give us an easy victory in 2012, another part of me is deeply troubled that one of the two major parties in the US could possibly actually be considering going soooo far off the rails...
 
I think it is very unlikely that the GOP will pick Bachmann as their candidate, but part of me hopes they do, since that would obviously lead to a devastating defeat for the GOP. I mean, the woman is literally insane. Not just like the standard sort of insane you find on the right wing. Literally, clinically, insane. She believes God gives her instructions. She believes that race wasn't an issue in the time of slavery. Her husband is very openly an anti-gay hatemonger and government fund embezzling quack. These aren't things I am making up or distorting, she openly says those things, and many more like them, all the time. Nominating her would be like nominating Gaddafi... So, while part of me does want the GOP to nominate her because it would give us an easy victory in 2012, another part of me is deeply troubled that one of the two major parties in the US could possibly actually be considering going soooo far off the rails...

Indeed, and it was a similar situation re: Palin, insofar as she was (and is) so obviously unqualified that one could only look on with a mixture of horror and glee.

In short, Democrats do not have a problem with Republican women. It is simply that the two most prominent Republican women are whackjobs. Republicans don't seem to care, so long as they're cute and willing to mouth extreme right wing talking points.
 
Bachman can't win the nomination because she's stone freakin' nuts. Batsh*t crazy.
This is very true.

I think it is very unlikely that the GOP will pick Bachmann as their candidate, but part of me hopes they do, since that would obviously lead to a devastating defeat for the GOP.
So let me see if I understand your point of view. You do not like the status quo, but you would rather deal with the status quo and defeat the GOP regardless of what you might actually believe is good for the country. One could argue that Obama is really Bush III and Bachmann/Romney/Perry are Bush IV. If you really want to change the status quo (for example, do the stuff that Obama promised but has not delivered) look at the only candidate who will. It sure as hell isn't any one mentioned above. Hint he came in second in that "irrelevant poll".
 
This is very true.


So let me see if I understand your point of view. You do not like the status quo, but you would rather deal with the status quo and defeat the GOP regardless of what you might actually believe is good for the country. One could argue that Obama is really Bush III and Bachmann/Romney/Perry are Bush IV. If you really want to change the status quo (for example, do the stuff that Obama promised but has not delivered) look at the only candidate who will. It sure as hell isn't any one mentioned above. Hint he came in second in that "irrelevant poll".

Speaking for myself, the only problem with the status quo is that there are too many republicans in Congress, and the ones who are there are far too willing to sacrifice the good of the country in order to score a point against Obama.
 
So let me see if I understand your point of view. You do not like the status quo, but you would rather deal with the status quo and defeat the GOP regardless of what you might actually believe is good for the country.

Huh? I didn't say anything about the status quo. Obviously Democrats, even the worst Democrat, is WAAAAAAY better for the country than even the best Republican. The problem we have right now is the Congressional Republicans/Tea Baggers.

One could argue that Obama is really Bush III and Bachmann/Romney/Perry are Bush IV.

That would be totally insane... I think you're confusing what the government as a whole does with what individual politicians push for. Like say that the country's policy on something can range between 1 and 10. The Republican wants 10 and the Democrat wants 1. Currently it is at 5. So, the Republican pushes for 6 and the Democrat pushes for 4. Not because that would be their ideal situation, but because it might actually pass and is, in their view, an improvement on the status quo. Bachmann's "10" is a hellish theocracy dominated by corporations in which women and non-christians have radically scaled back rights. Bush's "10" is a world without muslims where a handful of billionaires rule over the workers like feudal lords. Obama's "1" is a country where everybody has a decent shot at making it regardless of how wealthy or poor their parents are.

If you really want to change the status quo (for example, do the stuff that Obama promised but has not delivered) look at the only candidate who will. It sure as hell isn't any one mentioned above. Hint he came in second in that "irrelevant poll".

I actually have a strange respect for Ron Paul. He may be a bit crazy, but he's smart and spins an interesting yarn. That said, in reality his whole platform just boils down to "cede control of the country to the corporations".
 
Last edited:
I think it is very unlikely that the GOP will pick Bachmann as their candidate, but part of me hopes they do, since that would obviously lead to a devastating defeat for the GOP. I mean, the woman is literally insane. Not just like the standard sort of insane you find on the right wing. Literally, clinically, insane. She believes God gives her instructions. She believes that race wasn't an issue in the time of slavery. Her husband is very openly an anti-gay hatemonger and government fund embezzling quack. These aren't things I am making up or distorting, she openly says those things, and many more like them, all the time. Nominating her would be like nominating Gaddafi... So, while part of me does want the GOP to nominate her because it would give us an easy victory in 2012, another part of me is deeply troubled that one of the two major parties in the US could possibly actually be considering going soooo far off the rails...

LOL.

Anything the GOP roles out is better than the abortion of an embarassment you guys elected in 2008. They'll be writing books about the current trainwreck a hundred years from now.
 
LOL.

Anything the GOP roles out is better than the abortion of an embarassment you guys elected in 2008. They'll be writing books about the current trainwreck a hundred years from now.

IMO he has moved too far to the right to try to compromise with the nutbags in the GOP. That was a mistake. But overall he's doing a pretty good job. He got health care passed, although without the public option which would have been nice. He's carefully pulling us out of Bush's wars and not commiting land troops in Lybia. He's been at least pushing to address the rich/poor gap problem, although the GOP has managed to sink his efforts.

But, regardless of how good or bad he does, obviously even if you take the dimmest view possible of his accomplishments, he's not even in the same league of disaster as Bush2. And obviously Bachmann would be like Bush2 squared...
 
LOL.

Anything the GOP roles out is better than the abortion of an embarassment you guys elected in 2008. They'll be writing books about the current trainwreck a hundred years from now.

The GOP should be embarrassed that they can't produce a candidate that would work for the people of this country, how about some one like a Scott Brown who has demonstrated an ability to think pass party lines

Why is it that the GOP would even consider either Palin or Bachmann, maybe because they know how big business could control the presidency if either were to actually be elected
 
That would be totally insane... I think you're confusing what the government as a whole does with what individual politicians push for. Like say that the country's policy on something can range between 1 and 10. The Republican wants 10 and the Democrat wants 1. Currently it is at 5. So, the Republican pushes for 6 and the Democrat pushes for 4. Not because that would be their ideal situation, but because it might actually pass and is, in their view, an improvement on the status quo. Bachmann's "10" is a hellish theocracy dominated by corporations in which women and non-christians have radically scaled back rights. Bush's "10" is a world without muslims where a handful of billionaires rule over the workers like feudal lords. Obama's "1" is a country where everybody has a decent shot at making it regardless of how wealthy or poor their parents are.
I think you just accused Obama of being a democrat. Funny because he kept the same standards as the last Republican we had in there. Were he to act like a dem, I might believe it. For now, he has done nothing to differentiate himself as a democrat much less a leader. Frankly, I am tired of more of the same regardless of which party he claims...

Obama's "1" is a country were he could give a damn about the constitution (patriot act II, Guantanamo, 3+ wars) and works hard to *defend* corporations.

A Paul's vision is that corporations are on their own. Zero handouts for any of them. Zero bailouts. Treat every company from the corner store to Exxon the same. Let them fail and make them pay the same taxes as everyone else. I think you may be confused.
 
The GOP should be embarrassed that they can't produce a candidate that would work for the people of this country, how about some one like a Scott Brown who has demonstrated an ability to think pass party lines

Why is it that the GOP would even consider either Palin or Bachmann, maybe because they know how big business could control the presidency if either were to actually be elected

if what you said was even remotely true, we would see huge corporations shun the democratic wing of this country, when in reality, the opposite happens.

the centralization of power that democrats have fought for over the last century is a god send to the corporations. they love your platform, because the more power you hand to the government is the more power you hand to the rich.
 
I think you just accused Obama of being a democrat. Funny because he kept the same standards as the last Republican we had in there. Were he to act like a dem, I might believe it. For now, he has done nothing to differentiate himself as a democrat much less a leader. Frankly, I am tired of more of the same regardless of which party he claims...

Obama's "1" is a country were he could give a damn about the constitution (patriot act II, Guantanamo, 3+ wars) and works hard to *defend* corporations.

A Paul's vision is that corporations are on their own. Zero handouts for any of them. Zero bailouts. Treat every company from the corner store to Exxon the same. Let them fail and make them pay the same taxes as everyone else. I think you may be confused.

for some reason, I am unable to "like" this post, even though I love this post. where is the like link?
 
for some reason, I am unable to "like" this post, even though I love this post. where is the like link?
Refresh the page, if my post popped up for you right after you posted the like button will not show up. Known issue. Let me know if this works.
 
A Paul's vision is that corporations are on their own. Zero handouts for any of them. Zero bailouts. Treat every company from the corner store to Exxon the same. Let them fail and make them pay the same taxes as everyone else. I think you may be confused.

So no limits on what corporations can do to people at all. Just let them run roughshod over whoever they want. If they want to screw up the air you breath, let them. If they want to refuse to hire black people, no problem. If they want to sell baby blankets made out of asbestos, hey, that's their choice... No thanks. I do not welcome our new corporate overlords.
 
Yeah...the media told me that. That's it.....

Look: Paul is a fringe element lunatic who has zero chance, but keep telling yourself otherwise. It will be fun to watch.

It is about what the media tells you. The reason you think Paul is a "fringe element lunatic" is because the entire dynamic has been presented to you by the media in such a way that you are intended to conclude as such. Both the "mainstream" liberals and "mainstream" conservatives have strong elements of authoritarianism in their philosophy and so naturally when someone presents a philosophy that is far removed from the authoritarianism of both sides you are supposed to view him as a "fringe element lunatic" because otherwise your continued submission to authority would be impossible.

You are victim to one of the classic methods the State uses to stifle resistance, labeling all dissent as madness.
 
So no limits on what corporations can do to people at all. Just let them run roughshod over whoever they want. If they want to screw up the air you breath, let them. If they want to refuse to hire black people, no problem. If they want to sell baby blankets made out of asbestos, hey, that's their choice... No thanks. I do not welcome our new corporate overlords.
Would you buy heroin because it was cool? Does your belief system say that no-matter-what you will stay with the bank you have regardless if they screw you over? Hopefully the answer is no, but in your world you do not get to make those decisions. Your government does.

Reality is actually quite the opposite. There are only 3 or 4 banks overall. We can't tell them to get lost if we wanted to. We walk down the street and it is just another subsidiary of the one we were at. However, we've become complacent. It is the role of the market to dictate what is best for everyone. Corps have more protection than we do from doing things that would otherwise shut them down in a New York minute. Were we to do them, we would go to jail. Gov is there to protect you, not make your *decisions* for you. Corporations are not bad, they are just overly protected and that needs to end. They do wrong because they can and they need to be held accountable for those wrongs.

Having limits and rules and regulations are very good things when they make sense. Many libertarians are not advocating zero regulations/laws. Creating regulations and laws because they profit others is a very bad thing. For instance, private buying of raw milk is a federal law because it forces the population to purchase from an industry - that is just plain wrong in my book. I should be able to buy raw milk *and* from whomever I damn well chose.
 
That is not what I said. The only positive proof the majority of Republicans are not sexist is if they actually elect Bachmann as their candidate.

And that would be the only reason you can come up with? And you appear unaware that there can be sexism against men as well.

The Liberals elected a candidate because of the color of his skin and now they want the Republicans to elect someone because of their gender. Little wonder the United States can no longer be treated as a serious nation if this is the criteria to the highest office in the land.
There are as many brilliant women as there are brilliant men. However, Bachmann and Palin have demonstrated they are not among them.

Right, because they are "stupid" women. You've explained that.
 
Last edited:
Would you buy heroin because it was cool? Does your belief system say that no-matter-what you will stay with the bank you have regardless if they screw you over? Hopefully the answer is no, but in your world you do not get to make those decisions. Your government does.

Huh? What does that have to do with, for example, a corporation that is polluting? Government is the mechanism through which I can make a decision about that. Without government I can't make a decision about it.

Gov is there to protect you, not make your *decisions* for you.

What decisions are you talking about? I'm saying that government should constrain corporations to prevent them from doing things to harm the people. Nothing about making people's decisions for them. The people vote for the government... Maybe you can clarify your argument?

Corporations are not bad, they are just overly protected and that needs to end.

The notion that government overall favors corporations is ridiculous. Government is the only meaningful check the people have on corporations. 99.9% of corporations have never gotten a bailout or whatever. Regulation is the main interaction between government and corporations and corporations most definitely don't like being regulated.

Having limits and rules and regulations are very good things when they make sense. Many libertarians are not advocating zero regulations/laws. Creating regulations and laws because they profit others is a very bad thing. For instance, private buying of raw milk is a federal law because it forces the population to purchase from an industry - that is just plain wrong in my book. I should be able to buy raw milk *and* from whomever I damn well chose.

What are you talking about? Private buying of raw milk? Did you mean to say that the government requires that you buy homogenized milk or something? If so, yeah, the government maintains health standards... Why would that bother you?
 
Some? You betcha
A majority? Maybe

Like it or not, the traditional conservative view on women is barefoot and pregnant...

And you have some support for these ridiculous assertions?

Considering you and your cohorts label anything that you disagree with as "left wing", then your words don't mean much.

My cohorts? And who might they be? Do you believe that a left wing exists?

And yes, Conservative women often do get a hard time by the opposition.. but it is not because they are women, but because there are so few of them, that they do stick out like a sore thumb and when they come with idiotic comments on a regular basis, then well..

Apparently you have never seen a gathering of the Republican party and the number of women there.

It is the same with Herman Cain.. he is black, and a front line conservative... a quite rare thing... but are people racists for being critical of him? of course not, not when he comes stupid comments and has bonehead policy ideas. And yes the same goes for Obama.

Ah yes. Cain is stupid and boneheaded as well. Thats the typical LWftist critique of their poltical opponents. The real issues are never discussed.

Palin brought her family into her political campaigning and then like it or not they are fair game. She is the one that paraded her whole family on a very constant pace at all rallies she was at.

All political candidates in the US show their families and to you and other Leftists this makes them "far game"". We can therefore attack Barrack Obama's children but we don't. And do you know why? Because there is a sense of decency among non Leftists, and if his children were attacked it would be declared offensive by everyone immediately. It is only the children of Conservatives who are attacked in this fashion, just as are Conservative Blacks and Conservative women.

She is the one having one of her kids hold the baby.. she is the one who pushed Bristol with her big belly into the media spotlight and she is the one that got tax payers to pay for her whole family as they always traveled with her (instead of being in school....?) when she was governor of Alaska.

You feel it is wrong for one of her children to hold their bay? "Bristol with her big belly"??? She was pregnant! What do you expect? And families often travel together. Don't you know that? Have they no more family units in Europe?

As for Bachmann.. her family is in no way being scrutinised as Palin's was/is. Her children are pretty non existent in the reports I have seen, which frankly is good. Sure her husband is in the spotlight, but that is a self inflicted wound.

Oh they have tried to scrutinize Bachmann on non-political issues, even on these boards, and she is also being called "stupid" as you also describe a candidate. How is the presence of her husband a "self inflicted wound"?
 
Huh? What does that have to do with, for example, a corporation that is polluting? Government is the mechanism through which I can make a decision about that. Without government I can't make a decision about it.
Say you know a corporation that is polluting. As a good democrat/human you should vow to not purchase their goods - right? That is the most reasonable and responsible thing to do. In our current world, we are unable to not purchase their goods because the companies are protected by laws from us suing them or they are protected by being a racket that there are no other choices and it is illegal to do so.

What decisions are you talking about? I'm saying that government should constrain corporations to prevent them from doing things to harm the people.
I wholeheartedly agree. What are your thoughts on the government constraining for the sole purpose of profit? Personally, extreme health reasons I can see, and adhere to if they make sense. For instance, putting asbestos (a known carcinogen) into baby food should be a federal crime because that is stupidity. If a company were to do that, they should get sued from every American and shut down - not some $25,000 "oops" fine.

The notion that government overall favors corporations is ridiculous. Government is the only meaningful check the people have on corporations.
Unfortunately, I believe that you believe this. But, it is not true nor will it ever be true. Absolute power currupts absolutely. Government has that absolute power, we need to trim that a bit.

99.9% of corporations have never gotten a bailout or whatever. Regulation is the main interaction between government and corporations and corporations most definitely don't like being regulated.
On the big stuff, that 1% of companies actually do 99% of the work and get 99% of the profit. Thus simple math is that even that .1% you claim is very significant. Many "regulations" are for profit instead of for the "common good". I hate to be the bearer of bad news...

What are you talking about? Private buying of raw milk? Did you mean to say that the government requires that you buy homogenized milk or something? If so, yeah, the government maintains health standards... Why would that bother you?
Raw milk regulations have zero to do with health standards. Look it up.
 
Say you know a corporation that is polluting. As a good democrat/human you should vow to not purchase their goods - right? That is the most reasonable and responsible thing to do. In our current world, we are unable to not purchase their goods because the companies are protected by laws from us suing them or they are protected by being a racket that there are no other choices and it is illegal to do so.

A number of problems with your thinking... First off, that strategy of not buying stuff would only protect the consumers and only to the extent that they have a choice of products and only to the extent that they are aware of the issue. It does nothing to protect employees, people that live nearby, people who share the environment with the corporation, people who depend on natural resources the corporation exploits, etc. And even for consumers, without government they are highly unlikely to have any way to be aware of who is polluting or mistreating their workers or whatever, since nobody could compel corporations to release any information.

As for suing... You realize suing somebody in a court of law is a service provided by government... That is how individuals can enforce regulations. Government gives them that ability... Without government there would be no law to sue over, no court to determine if the law had been violated and no way to enforce the decision of the court...

Or the argument you make about monopoly is also backwards. Governments break up monopolies. That is one of the key areas of regulation- antitrust regulation.

I wholeheartedly agree. What are your thoughts on the government constraining for the sole purpose of profit?

Not sure what you mean. Government doesn't profit. It doesn't have shareholders or anything like that... Not sure what you mean.
 
So no limits on what corporations can do to people at all. Just let them run roughshod over whoever they want. If they want to screw up the air you breath, let them. If they want to refuse to hire black people, no problem. If they want to sell baby blankets made out of asbestos, hey, that's their choice... No thanks. I do not welcome our new corporate overlords.

You may not welcome your corporate overlords, but the policies you support are quite amicable to these corporations, which is why they support politicians like Obama so readily, and fight hard to keep a politician like Ron Paul from gaining ground

Ron Paul's free, green market - Global warming - Salon.com
 
Back
Top Bottom