• 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!

Speculation Builds on Michelle Obama Senate Run

VanceMack said:
WHat part of Rand Paul has you believing he is an ineffective representative of his constituents? Or is a candidate for prison and a straight jacket?

Frankly...I think Rand Paul is a better politician than his father. So if your point was that it can SOMETIMES work...sure...Look at the early Adams family. but...always...nah...''And is there anything about Mo's demeanor, actions, or behaviors that indicate she would be qualified or in any way competent?
Click to expand...

Well, I think Rand Paul is a horrible human being who doesn't care about any single issue other than whether or not he is going to be president. Maybe he'll settle for vice president. As far as issues? He doesn't care about issues. Whatever he can sell to his constituents comprises his platform. A very, very evil man.

No, my point was that politicians are chosen to lead because they can be effectively sold to voters. Obama was easy to sell to voters. So was Rand Paul. So was Al Franken, and Hillary Clinton. Between Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Conyers, who would win? Nobody cares about qualifications, they care about whether or not they can sit down and drink a beer with the guy (or girl). Above all, the point is that it is the voters who are stupid and you can blame them for favoring celebrities and big names.
 
Mustachio said:
Well, I think Rand Paul is a horrible human being who doesn't care about any single issue other than whether or not he is going to be president. Maybe he'll settle for vice president. As far as issues? He doesn't care about issues. Whatever he can sell to his constituents comprises his platform. A very, very evil man.

No, my point was that politicians are chosen to lead because they can be effectively sold to voters. Obama was easy to sell to voters. So was Rand Paul. So was Al Franken, and Hillary Clinton. Between Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Conyers, who would win? Nobody cares about qualifications, they care about whether or not they can sit down and drink a beer with the guy (or girl). Above all, the point is that it is the voters who are stupid and you can blame them for favoring celebrities and big names.
Click to expand...
You know him personally do you?

Well...he may be all those things I suppose, but at least we dont know him to be a judgmental little prick. I mean...can you even IMAGINE???
 
VanceMack said:
You know him personally do you?

Well...he may be all those things I suppose, but at least we dont know him to be a judgmental little prick. I mean...can you even IMAGINE???
Click to expand...

Rand Paul is somehow seen as a "tea party" politician, which is absurd. He has direct ties to groups like Americans for Prosperity and Citizens United. He is against all legal abortion, including aborting pregnancies that resulted from rape (he says he wants to "let the states decide" but if it were up to him, all abortion would be illegal). He wants to do away with Medicare and Social Security. He's against unions and job programs. Rand opposes net neutrality.

Basically, he believes in and fights for everything that the far right Republicans have been crusading for over the course of the last, oh, 40 years. But then he does his little circus act with nonsense issues like drones (after the filibuster, Eric Holder said that it was illegal for the President to deploy drones to kill a US citizen on American soil. Rand said he was happy with this. In other words, he never had a problem with the policy. Just thought it would be fun to force the media to pay attention to him for a few days) and lawsuits against the NSA. So does he represent the Tea Party or the far right wing of the Republican Party? The Religious Right? The libertarians? Paul has said he's a libertarian. He also said he isn't. So what are we to believe? I think my theory is excellent: he is the worst of the worst of the worst political scum who has no soul, only deep pockets full of donations from big business. I feel sad for the tea party folks he's fooled. He doesn't believe in small government, he believes in deep pockets and expansive power for himself. Terrible human being.
 
Mustachio said:
Rand Paul is somehow seen as a "tea party" politician, which is absurd. He has direct ties to groups like Americans for Prosperity and Citizens United. He is against all legal abortion, including aborting pregnancies that resulted from rape (he says he wants to "let the states decide" but if it were up to him, all abortion would be illegal). He wants to do away with Medicare and Social Security. He's against unions and job programs. Rand opposes net neutrality.
Click to expand...
Paul, Cruz, Rubio, Lee--the four headless horsemen--are steering clear of the Mississippi run-off.
Yet Ron Paul is strongly endorsing TEA-party McDaniel, giving the Paul ground-game go-ahead.

Rand is definitely running against the best governor left standing from the establishment for the GOP nomination,
as well as for Senator, just in case he loses .
 
Mustachio said:
Rand Paul is somehow seen as a "tea party" politician, which is absurd. He has direct ties to groups like Americans for Prosperity and Citizens United. He is against all legal abortion, including aborting pregnancies that resulted from rape (he says he wants to "let the states decide" but if it were up to him, all abortion would be illegal). He wants to do away with Medicare and Social Security. He's against unions and job programs. Rand opposes net neutrality.

Basically, he believes in and fights for everything that the far right Republicans have been crusading for over the course of the last, oh, 40 years. But then he does his little circus act with nonsense issues like drones (after the filibuster, Eric Holder said that it was illegal for the President to deploy drones to kill a US citizen on American soil. Rand said he was happy with this. In other words, he never had a problem with the policy. Just thought it would be fun to force the media to pay attention to him for a few days) and lawsuits against the NSA. So does he represent the Tea Party or the far right wing of the Republican Party? The Religious Right? The libertarians? Paul has said he's a libertarian. He also said he isn't. So what are we to believe? I think my theory is excellent: he is the worst of the worst of the worst political scum who has no soul, only deep pockets full of donations from big business. I feel sad for the tea party folks he's fooled. He doesn't believe in small government, he believes in deep pockets and expansive power for himself. Terrible human being.
Click to expand...
Yes...one can tell he really has you pretty completely spun up.
 
voyager1 said:
I don't think it is news that Kirk is a ripe target for the Dems in 2016. I would lump Kelly Ayote in on that too. If Marco Rubio runs for President, he can not defend his seat per (FL?) law. I don't think Rubio is going to run. I think the GOP is going to have their hands full in 2016 hence why the "scandals" are in full swing. 2016 for the GOP has to be about a "Third term Obama with Hillary."
Click to expand...

What is it about Kelly Ayotte that makes you think she is a good target for the Dems?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yeah, since when should someone with 'merely' a Yale law degree (Hillary) run for political office?

And when it comes to Michelle Obama (whose maiden name is Robinson btw), what's her educational background? Princeton AND Harvard:

Michelle was inspired to follow her brother to Princeton University, where Craig graduated in 1983. At Princeton, she challenged the teaching methodology for French because she felt that it should be more conversational. As part of her requirements for graduation, she wrote a thesis entitled Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community. "I remember being shocked," she says, "by college students who drove BMWs. I didn't even know parents who drove BMWs." While at Princeton, she got involved with the Third World Center (now known as the Carl A. Fields Center), an academic and cultural group that supported minority students, running their day care center, which also included after school tutoring. Robinson majored in sociology and minored in African American studies; she graduated cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in 1985. She earned her Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Harvard Law School in 1988. At Harvard she participated in demonstrations advocating the hiring of professors who were members of minorities and worked for the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, assisting low-income tenants with housing cases. She is the third First Lady with a postgraduate degree, after her two immediate predecessors, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Laura Bush.

And let's not stop there! How about her work experience? Surely all she's ever done is be FLOTUS, right? Um, actually, from the same reference:

Following law school, she was an associate at the Chicago office of the law firm Sidley Austin, where she first met her future husband. At the firm, she worked on marketing and intellectual property. She continues to hold her law license, but as she no longer needs it for her work, it has been on a voluntary inactive status since 1993.

In 1991, she held public sector positions in the Chicago city government as an Assistant to the Mayor, and as Assistant Commissioner of Planning and Development. In 1993, she became Executive Director for the Chicago office of Public Allies, a non-profit organization encouraging young people to work on social issues in nonprofit groups and government agencies. She worked there nearly four years and set fundraising record for the organization that still stood 12 years after she left.

In 1996, she served as the Associate Dean of Student Services at the University of Chicago, where she developed the University's Community Service Center. In 2002, she began working for the University of Chicago Hospitals, first as executive director for community affairs and, beginning May 2005, as Vice President for Community and External Affairs. She continued to hold the University of Chicago Hospitals position during the primary campaign, but cut back to part-time in order to spend time with her daughters as well as work for her husband's election; she subsequently took a leave of absence from her job. According to the couple's 2006 income tax return, her salary was $273,618 from the University of Chicago Hospitals, while her husband had a salary of $157,082 from the United States Senate. The Obamas' total income, however, was $991,296, which included $51,200 she earned as a member of the board of directors of TreeHouse Foods, and investments and royalties from his books.

She served as a salaried board member of TreeHouse Foods, Inc. (NYSE: THS), a major Wal-Mart supplier with whom she cut ties immediately after her husband made comments critical of Wal-Mart at an AFL-CIO forum in Trenton, New Jersey, on May 14, 2007. She serves on the board of directors of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

In other words, she is a very, very intelligent and educated woman with a wealth of experience in the public and private sector.

Of course, that obviously means to the Right that she is utterly unqualified to run for a Senate seat.

BTW, maybe you should check out Sarah Palin's education sometime.
Click to expand...

So education makes someone a good politician? You must have loved George W. Bush, who got his Bachelor's degree from Yale and his MBA from Harvard.

Is Sarah Palin running for office?
 
tres borrachos said:
What is it about Kelly Ayotte that makes you think she is a good target for the Dems?
Click to expand...

She is up in 2016. She got herself into some trouble with folks after the Newtown shooting. Lastly if Hillary runs I don't think Ayote will get the Hillary vote in split tickets.
 
voyager1 said:
She is up in 2016. She got herself into some trouble with folks after the Newtown shooting. Lastly if Hillary runs I don't think Ayote will get the Hillary vote in split tickets.
Click to expand...

I know she's up in 2016.

Newtown isn't going to be an issue with NH voters.
 
voyager1 said:
Do you think that Clinton voters will go
for Ayotte?
Click to expand...

That would depend on who she is running against, which we don't know yet. And Obama voters went for her, so it's very possible. She's popular here, and this state is a very gun friendly state, which is why Newtown won't hurt her.
 
tres borrachos said:
So education makes someone a good politician? You must have loved George W. Bush, who got his Bachelor's degree from Yale and his MBA from Harvard.

Is Sarah Palin running for office?
Click to expand...

Please put a bit more thought into things - you're better than that comment. You know very well that while a strong education doesn't guarantee that someone will perform with intelligence and wisdom, it DOES make it significantly more likely. Not only that, but education was not the only qualification I listed, is it?

And FYI, perhaps you should check up on Dubya's grades as compared to Michelle's cum laude at Princeton....
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Please put a bit more thought into things - you're better than that comment. You know very well that while a strong education doesn't guarantee that someone will perform with intelligence and wisdom, it DOES make it significantly more likely. Not only that, but education was not the only qualification I listed, is it?

And FYI, perhaps you should check up on Dubya's grades as compared to Michelle's cum laude at Princeton....
Click to expand...

So your extensively long post about Michelle Obama's education was just an irrelevant waste of bandwidth. Got it.
 
Thrilla said:
while speaking about credentials, let's keep in mind that a person who had but an elementary school education and was a mediocre military leader , at best. whose only real accomplishments were working as a surveyor , a farmer ,and overseeing inherited land and slaves.

...was our first President.. and he was pretty damn good at that.

and we've had some folks with incredible credentials who weren't worth spit...and we've had some simple folks who were worth their weight in gold.
Click to expand...

There are over 300 million Americans, we have plenty of qualified people who would do just fine being president. Presidents are very replaceable. They are quite frankly expendable assets for the most part with very rare exception, Washington being the only one in my opinion who was not expendable. He was our Cincinnatus. A man who was truly worthy of the power which he was granted.
 
j-mac said:
Dear God NO! What is wrong with this country....:doh
Click to expand...

This probably started on Facebook or some other bs opinion site. There is no way this woman would ever want to be president.
 
Carleen said:
This probably started on Facebook or some other bs opinion site. There is no way this woman would ever want to be president.
Click to expand...

:lamo Of course she want's to be President....This is Hillary we are talking about here...:shock:
 
j-mac said:
:lamo Of course she want's to be President....This is Hillary we are talking about here...:shock:
Click to expand...

"Eight years for Bill; eight years for Hill."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom