• 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!

man Michele Bachmann says she will not run for re-election in 2014

She's possibly going to run for senate against Al Franken.

Oh pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease let those two have a debate.

I mean, I know that's like asking a four year old to wrestle with a grizzly bear on steroids... but do you have any idea how entertaining this would be?
 
Jim Graves drops out following Michele Bachmann’s exit

Minnesota businessman Jim Graves, a top Democratic recruit who had been planning a rematch against Rep. Michele Bachmann next year, abruptly suspended his campaign Friday morning — two days after Bachmann announced she wouldn’t be seeking reelection.

Graves, who nearly knocked off Bachmann in November, launched his campaign last month and was in Washington last week to meet with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He released a poll showing him with a slight lead over Bachmann in a 2014 rematch.​
 
Jim Graves drops out following Michele Bachmann’s exit

Minnesota businessman Jim Graves, a top Democratic recruit who had been planning a rematch against Rep. Michele Bachmann next year, abruptly suspended his campaign Friday morning — two days after Bachmann announced she wouldn’t be seeking reelection.

Graves, who nearly knocked off Bachmann in November, launched his campaign last month and was in Washington last week to meet with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He released a poll showing him with a slight lead over Bachmann in a 2014 rematch.​

Yeah, he doesn't think he can beat Boring McRepublicanGuy either. Not in that freaking district.
 
Thank God I can FINALLY vote Republican in my district!
 
Thank God I can FINALLY vote Republican in my district!

Don't say that! They haven't had a primary yet! You'll jinx it!
 
Don't say that! They haven't had a primary yet! You'll jinx it!

As long as it's not Bachmann I'm voting Republican in my district lol

Each election I was forced to vote third party because of her stupidity,hell last election there was no third party so I left that section blank.Now I wouldn't feel as if I'm committing a crime by voting Republican in the 6th district lol
 
As long as it's not Bachmann I'm voting Republican in my district lol

Each election I was forced to vote third party because of her stupidity,hell last election there was no third party so I left that section blank.Now I wouldn't feel as if I'm committing a crime by voting Republican in the 6th district lol

This is how Bachmann got elected in the first place. People voting for the Republican for no other reason than them being Republican.
 
This is how Bachmann got elected in the first place. People voting for the Republican for no other reason than them being Republican.

No,she won because she is charasmatic and use to be a money raising machine.....Well thats what got her elected at first,then her nuttiness kicked in and each election has gotten tighter and tighter.I never voted for her,so I do not take responsibility to her being in office.
 
No,she won because she is charasmatic and use to be a money raising machine.....Well thats what got her elected at first,then her nuttiness kicked in and each election has gotten tighter and tighter.I never voted for her,so I do not take responsibility to her being in office.

And because it's a gerrymandered conservative district where people vote R because it's an R. The people who voted for her didn't analyze that decision, they voted for their team. This isn't some knock against conservatives, most voters behave this way.

You have admitted to planning to do this in the future. To avoid a stealth Bachmann 2.0, I would suggest learning about the various candidates before blindly voting for them!
 
And because it's a gerrymandered conservative district where people vote R because it's an R. The people who voted for her didn't analyze that decision, they voted for their team. This isn't some knock against conservatives, most voters behave this way.

You have admitted to planning to do this in the future. To avoid a stealth Bachmann 2.0, I would suggest learning about the various candidates before blindly voting for them!

If I blindly voted for Republicans,I would've voted for Bachmann.....
 
This is how Bachmann got elected in the first place. People voting for the Republican for no other reason than them being Republican.

well maybe some people get tired of the party of tax hikes, massive government spending and buying the votes of the unproductive with the wealth of others? and if someone voted for Nancy Pelosi as SOTH that pretty much puts them on the permanent Do NOT VOTE for list for me
 
well maybe some people get tired of the party of tax hikes, massive government spending and buying the votes of the unproductive with the wealth of others? and if someone voted for Nancy Pelosi as SOTH that pretty much puts them on the permanent Do NOT VOTE for list for me

... and yet Republican states make the highest use of welfare.

The Republican Party hasn't taken a serious stand against wealth redistribution in ... well, never. Not even during the New Deal. Even their opposition to health care reform was cast in terms of different conflicts, like the size of government.
 
... and yet Republican states make the highest use of welfare.

not that stupid claim again. that only works if GOP states have nothing but GOP voters
and what is OHIO? How about VIRGINIA, FLORIDA?
 
not that stupid claim again. that only works if GOP states have nothing but GOP voters
and what is OHIO? How about VIRGINIA, FLORIDA?

Stupid "because cranberries" I assume.

It would be one thing if you could isolate lower income demographics in red states from conservative voting patterns, but poor white people tend to vote Republican and they also make broad use of welfare.

More importantly, it doesn't change the fact the Republican Party has never taken any overt stand against wealth redistribution and engages with it at about the same frequency as Democrats. That is a well documented fact.
 
Last edited:
Stupid "because cranberries" I assume.

It would be one thing if you could isolate lower income demographics in red states from conservative voting patterns, but poor white people tend to vote Republican and they also make broad use of welfare.

More importantly, it doesn't change the fact the Republican Party has never taken any overt stand against wealth redistribution and routinely engages with it at about the same frequency as Democrats.

the GOP is cowardly because there are so many people sucking on the public tit and cutting all of those who really shouldn't be off would be an electoral disaster. But the fact remains, the main selling point the dems make to most voters is that "we will give you stuff" while the GOPs main argument to its supporters is "we will take less than they will"
 
the GOP is cowardly because there are so many people sucking on the public tit and cutting all of those who really shouldn't be off would be an electoral disaster. But the fact remains, the main selling point the dems make to most voters is that "we will give you stuff" while the GOPs main argument to its supporters is "we will take less than they will"

Actually, the GOPs main selling point is that theyre all mainly Christians and country folk. The percentage of voters who vote Republican because of the Southern strategy, vastly outweighs the percentage who vote for them because of taxes. In the South alone, there are millions of people on welfare programs who vote because of that. Its a bit of a contradiction, sure, but its no more a contradiction than minorities on welfare supporting Conservative initiatives when it comes to gay marriage.
 
the GOP is cowardly because there are so many people sucking on the public tit and cutting all of those who really shouldn't be off would be an electoral disaster. But the fact remains, the main selling point the dems make to most voters is that "we will give you stuff" while the GOPs main argument to its supporters is "we will take less than they will"

And yet any variation of corporate welfare doesn't compensate for this?

People have a perception that the United States government invests money in developing countries for diplomatic and military reasons, but the underlying purpose is because those are the places with the cheapest, most under regulated labor and resources and therefore the places private companies are most anxious to invest. Problem is, none of these countries have (or had) the infrastructure to make something like an Ipod manufacturing plant a reality. No roads, no trains, no airports, no cost effective means of distributing products back to the West. So American tax dollars get invested abroad to make countries economically useful to us. As with most of the perks of globalism, this is something only wealthy Americans can take advantage of it. The middle class guy gets screwed three times: his taxes export his job, he accepts lower wages to be competitive with the job he paid money to get exported, then he has to buy the products he paid taxes to help get made.

Point is, if you want to measure out who gets more out of wealth distribution, its the people who have money.
 
Last edited:
And yet any variation of corporate welfare doesn't compensate for this.

People have a perception that the United States government invests money in developing countries for diplomatic and military reasons, but the underlying purpose is because those are the places with the cheapest, most under regulated labor and therefore the places private companies are most anxious to invest. Problem is, none of these countries have (or had) the infrastructure to make something like an Ipod manufacturing plant a reality. No roads, no trains, no airports, no cost effective means of distributing products back to the West. So American tax dollars get invested abroad to make countries economically useful to us. As with most of the perks of globalism, this is something only wealthy Americans can take advantage of it. The middle class guy gets screwed twice: he pays taxes to export his jobs and then he has to accept lower wages to be competitive with the job he paid to export.

Point is, if you want to measure out who gets more out of wealth distribution, its the people who have money.

yeah its poor people who fund the government and those of us paying half our income in state and federal taxes who get all the benefits of redistribution
 
If $istah $arah and Bat**** Bachmann were ever in the same room together the intellectual vacuum created would collapse the walls.

Nah, Bachmann's not stupid. She is definitely not sane, however.
 
No,she won because she is charasmatic and use to be a money raising machine.....Well thats what got her elected at first,then her nuttiness kicked in and each election has gotten tighter and tighter.I never voted for her,so I do not take responsibility to her being in office.

She barely won last time. What was it, 1 point or 2?

This is very good news for the GOP. Now they can win easily without having to defend her craziness.
 
... and yet Republican states make the highest use of welfare.

The Republican Party hasn't taken a serious stand against wealth redistribution in ... well, never. Not even during the New Deal. Even their opposition to health care reform was cast in terms of different conflicts, like the size of government.

McConnell's state is one of the highest when it comes to welfare recipients. And of course they love him for it and keep voting him in.
 
Let me translate: "I will be working from the studio in my house that Fox News will be building for me." Unless she and her husband are too busy praying away the gay.
Let me debug your translation: "There is no future option or opportunity, be it directly in the political arena or otherwise, that I won't be giving serious consideration if it can help save and protect our great nation."
 
well maybe some people get tired of the party of tax hikes, massive government spending and buying the votes of the unproductive with the wealth of others? and if someone voted for Nancy Pelosi as SOTH that pretty much puts them on the permanent Do NOT VOTE for list for me

Would you vote for Bachmann?
 
Back
Top Bottom