• 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

j-mac said:
Dear God NO! What is wrong with this country....:doh
Click to expand...

Personally, I think Moo absolutely should run for office. Of you look back into the history of herself and hubby, you will find that he was her project. She enticed him into politics and personally 'trained' him. Perhaps that is a lot of this problem. But bottom line is she tried to run this country by proxy and it hasn't worked out too well for her. If she wants to hold office, she should run for office and not find some puppet to do her bidding.

Would I vote for her? No.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nothing to do with her running. The country is strong enough to handle differing opinions and school of thought. In fact, the greater threat is from those who think the only way to last is to have everyone think alike.
Click to expand...

Todays Democrat Party is one of the most think alike bunch of goosesteppers the country has ever seen. The talking points that start in the White House spin room can be heard all throughout this administration to the very word & down to the last drone who supports them. There intolerance for differing opinons can be seen for example in the Global warming debate where they tell us the Science is settled yet many Scientists & people alike disagree & have valid arguments. Some on the left are even calling punishment of anyone who doesnt tow the line. I think we are already seeing this in the Scientific community.

Michelles Food Fascism is another example

If these people continue to stay in power what little is left of our Constitutional Republic will soon be an Authoritarian State where we can only dream of what it use to be like to be free.
 
j-mac said:
Dear God NO! What is wrong with this country....:doh
Click to expand...

In what universe is Michelle even qualified to be a Senator? or much less her husband being president?

I swear - if Oprah were to run for Senate EVERY democrat would vote for her despite the fact the has no qualifications whatsoever to legislate.

The only reason why Jesse Jackson lost his bid is because he was a proven racist with a shady past. If it wasn't for that - the guy could have been the first "truly black" president - and obviously would have destroyed the country in the process.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The only way to last as the first Americans intended with the Constitution is to honor the intent of that Constitution. The Founders certainly did not see eye to eye on every issue which is why it took them all those years to hammer out a Constitution they all could live with and even then a few who participated in the process could not bring themselves to sign it. Nor did the Founders expect everybody to think alike or march in lockstep. The one thing they did agree on is that we would not be a country in which everybody had to think alike, believe alike, agree, conform, or else be punished. THAT is what we are losing because we have so many who no longer agree with a Constitution that allows people to be who and what they are with impunity so long as they respect the rights of others.
Click to expand...

That sounds good, but is bases on a few false assumptions: 1) that we've completely abandoned the Constitution (we haven't) and 2) that the founding fathers we have stayed stagnant for 200 years and not read what they wrote to fit the times. I think people get upset when they don't like the conclusions reached. Instead of following how it came about and making a better argument, they complain that it was somehow unfair. You, activist judges and the like.
 
Iron Yank said:
Todays Democrat Party is one of the most think alike bunch of goosesteppers the country has ever seen. The talking points that start in the White House spin room can be heard all throughout this administration to the very word & down to the last drone who supports them. There intolerance for differing opinons can be seen for example in the Global warming debate where they tell us the Science is settled yet many Scientists & people alike disagree & have valid arguments. Some on the left are even calling punishment of anyone who doesnt tow the line. I think we are already seeing this in the Scientific community.

Michelles Food Fascism is another example

If these people continue to stay in power what little is left of our Constitutional Republic will soon be an Authoritarian State where we can only dream of what it use to be like to be free.
Click to expand...

I don't find that to be true.
 
Boo Radley said:
That sounds good, but is bases on a few false assumptions: 1) that we've completely abandoned the Constitution (we haven't) and 2) that the founding fathers we have stayed stagnant for 200 years and not read what they wrote to fit the times. I think people get upset when they don't like the conclusions reached. Instead of following how it came about and making a better argument, they complain that it was somehow unfair. You, activist judges and the like.
Click to expand...

Don't put me in the same mold with activist judges. I think the original Constitution as the Founders intended it was entirely fair for their time and the principles it embraced are timeless and work in all times. It is those principles that government has discarded in favor of the self-serving permanent professional political class that we have for a government today. You may think it is fine. I don't.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Don't put me in the same mold with activist judges. I think the original Constitution as the Founders intended it was entirely fair for their time and the principles it embraced are timeless and work in all times. It is those principles that government has discarded in favor of the self-serving permanent professional political class that we have for a government today. You may think it is fine. I don't.
Click to expand...


No, we've allowed them to stay in office. Why pass the blame? We hold the power.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, we've allowed them to stay in office. Why pass the blame? We hold the power.
Click to expand...

Even the most staunch of conservatives has a tough time giving up a government benefit once he is receiving it, most especially when he has no guarantee he won't be the ONLY one giving up the benefit. The government now is providing some kind of government benefit targeted at more than 50% of the American people. And they have the ability to stack the votes to ensure that nobody is going to unseat them and the power to effectively destroy or marginalize most of those who try or who give them any major grief.
 
ecofarm said:
Nonsense. Yale Law, worked in a firm, taught at a university, helped found and worked for several organizations...


Hillary Rodham Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Flunked the DC bar, her effectiveness as an attorney at the Rose law firm was mainly dependent upon her representing clients in front of people who were appointed to their offices by her husband.


I used to love people noting that W was only president due to his father (true) and yet bray about Hillary being qualified to be a senator.
 
Navy Pride said:
Millions of Americans have those qualifications and that does not mean they are qualified to be president
Click to expand...

And what are the qualifications for president?
 
ecofarm said:
30 years old, citizen for at least nine years and inhabits the state intended to represent.
Click to expand...

A petrified cucumber would fit the same bill without the destruction left in its wake.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Even the most staunch of conservatives has a tough time giving up a government benefit once he is receiving it, most especially when he has no guarantee he won't be the ONLY one giving up the benefit. The government now is providing some kind of government benefit targeted at more than 50% of the American people. And they have the ability to stack the votes to ensure that nobody is going to unseat them and the power to effectively destroy or marginalize most of those who try or who give them any major grief.
Click to expand...

I guess I just don't buy that. I think benefits have a history and largely represent what voters thought was a good idea. And when I look around, we are largely better off with them. It's fantasy that employment would be noticeably higher without these benefits, for example.

Isn't it a bit of elitism to think one us smarter than other voters? To think they must be something wrong if it doesn't turn out the way one wants? No, the buck stops with the voter. They hold the power.
 
Boo Radley said:
I guess I just don't buy that. I think benefits have a history and largely represent what voters thought was a good idea. And when I look around, we are largely better off with them. It's fantasy that employment would be noticeably higher without these benefits, for example.

Isn't it a bit of elitism to think one us smarter than other voters? To think they must be something wrong if it doesn't turn out the way one wants? No, the buck stops with the voter. They hold the power.
Click to expand...

We can agree to disagree. I know a lot of people who HATE what the government is doing and KNOW that it is wrong, but they are unwilling to risk whatever break or benefit they are getting from the government out of fear that it won't be replaced with anything better--that they might lose the benefit while nothing else changes. THAT, plus the most dumbed down and clueless electorate I can remember in my entire lifetime, is your current typical voter.

Chances are you have never experienced what America was like before government started manipulating everything we do and are, including our votes. So of course you can't imagine not having those benefits. And perhaps a $17+ trillion dollar debt that is growing by billions daily isn't a concern for you. It is for me.
 
AlbqOwl said:
We can agree to disagree. I know a lot of people who HATE what the government is doing and KNOW that it is wrong, but they are unwilling to risk whatever break or benefit they are getting from the government out of fear that it won't be replaced with anything better--that they might lose the benefit while nothing else changes. THAT, plus the most dumbed down and clueless electorate I can remember in my entire lifetime, is your current typical voter.

Chances are you have never experienced what America was like before government started manipulating everything we do and are, including our votes. So of course you can't imagine not having those benefits. And perhaps a $17+ trillion dollar debt that is growing by billions daily isn't a concern for you. It is for me.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm 55 and I remember distinctly when my father left with his secretary, leaving us to free fall from Arlington Heights in Jacksonville Florida to the Brentwood projects. I remember eating beans and cheese as a staple because it was given out free each month. I remember suffering from blood poisoning as a child due to insect bites living in the chest pool that was the projects.

Certainly laws against fathers have helped. Improvements in welfare have helped. But catering to business hasn't.

Regardless, the voter holds the power. If the choose not to exercise it, so be it. It is our system. Would you point to a better system you prefer?
 
j-mac said:
Dear God NO! What is wrong with this country....:doh
Click to expand...
I'd say it is a given this was going to happen. Lack of qualifications did not stop her husband from climbing his way up to POTUS. I'd always just assumed they would move back to Chicago and she would do this and I expect the electorate there will gladly line up and put her into office. So yeah, get used to the idea because if I were a betting man I'd bet she will run and win. Though I supposed there is the outside chance that things could get much worse for the Obama "brand" between now and then end of her husband's term.
 
Filthy McNasty said:
I'd say it is a given this was going to happen. Lack of qualifications did not stop her husband from climbing his way up to POTUS. I'd always just assumed they would move back to Chicago and she would do this and I expect the electorate there will gladly line up and put her into office. So yeah, get used to the idea because if I were a betting man I'd bet she will run and win. Though I supposed there is the outside chance that things could get much worse for the Obama "brand" between now and then end of her husband's term.
Click to expand...

If Michelle were to run for the senate in Illinois she would have to do it in 2016 against Republican Mark Kirk, Illinois other senator is a Democrat, Dick Durbin and he ain't going nowhere. Now running a senate campaign out of the White House in your husband's last year as being president could be very tricky. I am not sure running for senator while your husband is president, how that would play or look to the American public as a whole. Hillary waited until Bill was out of office, I think Michelle should too. But like I stated, if she did that and moved back to Illinois, she would have to wait until 2022 to run.

Perhaps using Hillary as an example the Obama's could move back to Hawaii, but again both senators are Democrats. Perhaps to another New England state? But again with the lone exception of Kelly Ayotte, all are Democrats and like Mark Kirk, she is up for re-election in 2018.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, I'm 55 and I remember distinctly when my father left with his secretary, leaving us to free fall from Arlington Heights in Jacksonville Florida to the Brentwood projects. I remember eating beans and cheese as a staple because it was given out free each month. I remember suffering from blood poisoning as a child due to insect bites living in the chest pool that was the projects.

Certainly laws against fathers have helped. Improvements in welfare have helped. But catering to business hasn't.

Regardless, the voter holds the power. If the choose not to exercise it, so be it. It is our system. Would you point to a better system you prefer?
Click to expand...

I prefer a system in which the federal government provides the common defense, passes whatever laws are necessary for the various states to function as one cohesive nation, and secures our rights and then leave us the hell alone to live our lives, be who and what we are, and form whatever sorts of societies we wish to have.

Is there any chance in hell that Senator Michelle and I would be soul mates re that?
 
Any state that elects her deserves it.
 
Who in their right mind would vote for a person who only became "proud of her country" after her husband was elected President. She was not "proud of her country" when Barry was elected as a State Senator. She was NOT PROUD of her country when he was nominated by the DNC to be their candidate. She is nothing but a bitter, hateful person.
 
Perotista said:
If Michelle were to run for the senate in Illinois she would have to do it in 2016 against Republican Mark Kirk, Illinois other senator is a Democrat, Dick Durbin and he ain't going nowhere. Now running a senate campaign out of the White House in your husband's last year as being president could be very tricky. I am not sure running for senator while your husband is president, how that would play or look to the American public as a whole. Hillary waited until Bill was out of office, I think Michelle should too. But like I stated, if she did that and moved back to Illinois, she would have to wait until 2022 to run.

Perhaps using Hillary as an example the Obama's could move back to Hawaii, but again both senators are Democrats. Perhaps to another New England state? But again with the lone exception of Kelly Ayotte, all are Democrats and like Mark Kirk, she is up for re-election in 2018.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you and if she (Obama) is to run in 2016, maybe another New England state could fill the bill for the reasons you pointed out. Or something "brokered" in Illinois, just wild speculation admittedly. It has been so long, I don't recall anymore what the original pretext of the selection of Chappaqua was from the Clintons. Aside from Hilary wanting to run for senate. ;)
 
AlbqOwl said:
I prefer a system in which the federal government provides the common defense, passes whatever laws are necessary for the various states to function as one cohesive nation, and secures our rights and then leave us the hell alone to live our lives, be who and what we are, and form whatever sorts of societies we wish to have.

Is there any chance in hell that Senator Michelle and I would be soul mates re that?
Click to expand...

You know, I've never had any trouble living my own life. Not sure what is interfering with anyone's life.
 
Filthy McNasty said:
I don't disagree with you and if she (Obama) is to run in 2016, maybe another New England state could fill the bill for the reasons you pointed out. Or something "brokered" in Illinois, just wild speculation admittedly. It has been so long, I don't recall anymore what the original pretext of the selection of Chappaqua was from the Clintons. Aside from Hilary wanting to run for senate. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't remember either and due to the fact that NY would have an open seat, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan retired. Also to her advantage New York only had a six month residency requirement. So that also has to be taken into consideration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom