• 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
Actually she did avoid it. She mentioned that "part" of the meaning of submission is respect, which did not answer the question.

CNN disagrees that she said "part." Did CNN get it wrong?

York's question was: "In 2006, when you were running for Congress, you described a moment in your life when your husband said you should study for a degree in tax law. You said you hated the idea. And then you explained, "But the Lord said, 'Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.' "

"As president, would you be submissive to your husband?"

Bachmann answered, in part: "Marcus and I will be married for 33 years this September 10th. I'm in love with him. I'm so proud of him. And both he and I -- what submission means to us, if that's what your question is, it means respect.

"I respect my husband. He's a wonderful, godly man, and a great father. And he respects me as his wife."


Bachmann 'submission' question was offensive - CNN
 
Why weren't any of the other candidates asked "do you believe your spouse is submissive enough to you?" . . . and so on - she's not the only one with a faith that suggests this is how thins 'should be'

She handled it well but her answer was bull**** - "we respect eachother" - haha. . . look. I would have respected her answer MORE if it were the truth that most religious women apparently struggle with: "my religion tells me one thing - and I chose that one part just doesn't apply these days but try to adhere to the more important things."

They could have asked men that too... it would have been interesting, but I think she was asked because she said she was submissive to her man before. He TOLD her to finish her education, so she did.
 
They could have worded the question differently, then, and subverted this whole fallback.

Simply for the fact that she's a successful political figure - and she's female - obviously she's not cleaving to any 'traditional/old fashioned submission' - nor is Palin.

But maybe she is successful because her husband is telling her what to do... lol
 
Of course she did. Her religious base would be furious if she refuted and the rest of the country would think she was crazy if she didn't.

It doesn't say much for her honesty though.


It's the same reason why Palin wouldn't come out and say something like, "I am not a bad mother to make this career choice and have small children, even one with special needs, because my husband is capable of taking care of children just as well as I am. I can be the provider just as well as he can."
 
No, it wouldn't. If a male candidate for president was on record as stating that he believed males should be submissive to their wives, then it's fair to say that the American voters would want to know exactly who would be making the decisions in the whitehouse... the candidate or the candidate's wife.

If a male said his wife should be submissive to him, OMG... firestorm. Especially if Romney said it... I think they'd be able to get out of it though. Somebody like Newt would be smart about twisting the comment around and making about Jesus or something... lol.
 
The Apostle Paul commands women that not only are they to stay silent in Church, but they CANNOT hold power over men and must be subservient to their husband.

Was the question fair? You betcha'.
 
so, you think the question should have been made into a softball
i disagree

this question was as legitimate - and appropriate - as asking JFK, if he were to be elected president, and as a faithful catholic, would he subordinate his decisions to those of the pope

that is information an informed voter would want to know

just as we should want to know whether bachmann as president (perish the thought) would subordinate her decisions once again to those of her gay converting spouse

by her previous public statements, bachmann brought the need for such a question upon herself

Obama has had to address his race and the threats of assassination against him... I remember hearing him address those concerns and questions before.
 
If the question was asked without any background to lead to it, then I would say it was inappropriate if it was just a feeler question. Since Bachman actually made the statement...it was a appropriate to ask for a clarification.

I agree, if the question came out of nowhere it would have been really inappropriate...
 
The Apostle Paul commands women that not only are they to stay silent in Church, but they CANNOT hold power over men and must be subservient to their husband.

Was the question fair? You betcha'.

Boobs have power over men, so your comment is obviously wrong...
 
I understand the reason for such a question to be asked because shes a heavy duty Christian... but i think it was inappropriate because the question was ignorant about common christian views/stances. It sounded as if a Left wing atheist was trying to throw a "Gotchya" question and bash both her and Christianity.

I only really care if Bachmann cares. I think it has some legitimate things about to become a little angry over, but if your the type of person that is layed-back and "meh-whatever question ya wanna throw at me" kind of person then i don't see the problem.
 
The Apostle Paul commands women that not only are they to stay silent in Church, but they CANNOT hold power over men and must be subservient to their husband.

Was the question fair? You betcha'.

being gay, paul was more than a bit biased
 
Ah yes - Paul and his noble Roman ass. . . which has many contradictions in the Bible - reading his works is like making sense of a schizophrenic's diary entries and others who wrote about him weren't much more squared away on who he was, either.

The catholic church should have conviened a little further on him before they wrote him up.
 
Considering she made the earlier statement about subservience, and I've known a number of Christians who take that very literally to mean a woman is subservient to her man, I was ok with the question. When you make religion a big part of your public persona, I think it's appropriate to take a candidates religious views into account when they are very open about using their religion in political campaigning and speeches.
 
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.

It's probably not a question you are likely to see posed to any democrats. "Candidate Obama...you are a Christian...do you dominate your wife and insist she be submissive to you?" Fair...eh. Silly? You bet.

But...

Taken out of context that could be used to imply men dominate their submissive wives. Taken in context it is but one half of the equation. Husbands...love your wives and Christ loved the church. Translation live for them, respect them. Be honorable. If necessary, die for them. Its a pretty powerful description for a healthy relationship. I dont see anywhere where it gives the husband the right to direct or dictate to a woman their responsibilities as an elected official. Such a thing would be outside the scope of the cited scripture.

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. Candidate Gingrich will likely have to field questions why he was with another woman while still married. The difference of course is that none of the media ever came out and asked "Mr Clinton...just how many other fat chicks HAVE you been boffing while you have been married?" Or of Mr Kerry...since you already have your first and second wives money, should something ever happen to Theresa will you marry another Yeti just because they are loaded?
 
It's probably not a question you are likely to see posed to any democrats. "Candidate Obama...you are a Christian...do you dominate your wife and insist she be submissive to you?" Fair...eh. Silly? You bet.

But...

Taken out of context that could be used to imply men dominate their submissive wives. Taken in context it is but one half of the equation. Husbands...love your wives and Christ loved the church. Translation live for them, respect them. Be honorable. If necessary, die for them. Its a pretty powerful description for a healthy relationship. I dont see anywhere where it gives the husband the right to direct or dictate to a woman their responsibilities as an elected official. Such a thing would be outside the scope of the cited scripture.

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. Candidate Gingrich will likely have to field questions why he was with another woman while still married. The difference of course is that none of the media ever came out and asked "Mr Clinton...just how many other fat chicks HAVE you been boffing while you have been married?" Or of Mr Kerry...since you already have your first and second wives money, should something ever happen to Theresa will you marry another Yeti just because they are loaded?

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?
 
It was sexist, and they never asked Hillary that question.

A christian family with a wife and husband still in the same household is told biblicaly to be submissive to the husband. She's made no bones about that and the question is often asked of christian women - "do you submit to your husband?" So it's a perfectly fine question to ask given her background and the public information available. Was it appropriate in a public Presidential debate? Questionable... especially around it's relevance, but inappropriate questions are asked of public people especially those wanting to be President (or at least, when the media decides it wants to press a candidates buttons), and it seemed she did a good job at answering. Gotta expect stuff like this to happen when both a Republican and running for President.
 
The context of the question was:

1. How much of a member of the Christiban are you?
 
Another Farce/abuse of a "poll" as pure political comment.

All 3 'choices' except none of those deeming the question objectionable.
No option for voting that it was a an appropriate/fair question.
(I didn't like the question to her but won't vote)
 
Last edited:
Another Farce/abuse of a "poll" as pure political comment.

All 3 'choices' except none of those deeming the question objectionable.
No option for voting that it was a an appropriate/fair question.
(I didn't like the question to her but won't vote)

If you voted none, that would mean you thought it was appropriate and fair. Tough to figure out I am sure...
 
Wow, lot's of straw in this thread. :)

Bottom line, when a presidential candidate uses a personal belief in campaign speeches, he/she is going to be questioned on it. Obama very publicly annointed the Rev. Wright as a spiritual mentor and being the most influential man in his life. Well, you bet your bippy public opinion was then focused on Rev. Wright, which brought to light Rev. Wright's very controversial issues and a great many controversial topics... as it should have been.

The voting public needs to know if you think whitey needs to be slapped down, don't you think? If Obama was going to bring Rev. Wright's teachings into the whitehouse, then I for one sure as hell wanted to know.

This situation is no different at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom