Michelle Bachman announces her candidacy for preisdent

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Your funny. You bring up all these things about Palin and when I respond to each point you accuse me of not bringing up Bachmann. If you would like responses to Bachmann than please mention some of your viewpoints on her and not just Palin and you will get a sufficient retort.

I have tried to bring this back to Bachmann with every single one of my posts. You refuse to acknowledge her as even being relevant to the discussion. I sure did mention Palin and Bachmann. You only want to talk about Palin and you just keep saying the same things about her. That got old real fast.

And yes Bachmann is guilty of the same thing as Obama is. The people did not elect a person to Congress to serve part of the term than be stuck with anyone the governor chooses as a replacement. You did not see Bachmann or Obama mention that when they were running for Congress, "vote for me, of course I may only be here a short time", and I would be upset with any of my elected officials if they bailed out on their duties.

Yes she is. So if that is a problem for you that Obama did that, then it should be a problem for you Michelle is doing it. Neither one quite because it got too hard though.

This does not mean the reasons are not always valid. Sure running for President is a valid reason but so are the ones that made Palin leave.

No they are not. She just quit.

If I had voted for her I would be upset although I could understand it. If staying in office meant not being able to perform duties as one should then yeah get out and make room for someone that could.

That is the laziest and weakest excuse for quitting anything I have ever heard. You do not quit a job because it is too hard and then claim to be ready for a tougher job. Not selling here. Sell that elsewhere.

I actually can understand her reasons more than I can Obama's or Bachmann's which is more selfish in my opinion as they just want something better and forget about the people that got em there in the first place.

Uh huh. Again, the topic here is Bachmann whom you seem to be incapable of discussing. You made your case for why Sarah quit 3 times now. I do not care. She quit because it was too hard. Case closed on that.

Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by samcrow

 

Good questions. What do we really know about her?

Does she really have all those foster children or is that a ploy? I want to see proof.
She does not blink enough. I need to see some medical history.
Oh and she totally sounds Canadian so the birth certificate question should just be a given.
Well, they should all be showing a birth certification, right?
I got all the other birthers here with me on that one.

Right guys?


They were just here a president ago, I swear.
Well at least she started off with a bang by comparing herself to a gay serial killer. That was fun. She will be fun.

Well judging from this post of yours you will hate her no matter what we discuss so perhaps it's best if we leave it here. I don't believe you have any intention of having a solid political debate on her views.

Originally posted by kro32
Well judging from this post of yours you will hate her no matter what we discuss so perhaps it's best if we leave it here. I don't believe you have any intention of having a solid political debate on her views.

edit on 28-6-2011 by kro32 because: (no reason given)

So that post did not bother you until you needed an excuse to quit huh? Your timing is off. If that bothered you, it should have done so when you read it and not after talking about it for a page +. There is no way to defend Bachmann or the things she says. I see how hard it is for you guys. Besides, what is wrong with what is good for the goose is good for the gander? Did we really only have those kinds of curiosities with Obama? Why? Because he was a Dem? From Chicago? Black? I know no one wants to seem like they were just picking on that guy is all.

reply to post by Kitilani


Actually all Presidential candidates endure those not just Obama. Doesn't mean that we here at ATS also need to stoop to that level does it?

Bachmann can be defended as well as Obama or Bush or whoever you want to put up there as long as the accusations are defendable. I in no way support Bachmann or anyone yet but I still like to give people the benefit of the doubt and not resort to silly remarks like your post.

I never bought into all the stuff said about Obama and if you look at my post history you'll see i've only criticized him for his stances on issues and even defended him at times if the situation called for it. I will do the same for Bachmann if I think the situation merits it.

This was my point with regards to Palin. I do not know if she will enter but it's a viable topic to consider since the chance is there.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Actually all Presidential candidates endure those not just Obama. Doesn't mean that we here at ATS also need to stoop to that level does it?

Bachmann can be defended as well as Obama or Bush or whoever you want to put up there as long as the accusations are defendable. I in no way support Bachmann or anyone yet but I still like to give people the benefit of the doubt and not resort to silly remarks like your post.

I never bought into all the stuff said about Obama and if you look at my post history you'll see i've only criticized him for his stances on issues and even defended him at times if the situation called for it. I will do the same for Bachmann if I think the situation merits it.

No clue how you get from there to

This was my point with regards to Palin. I do not know if she will enter but it's a viable topic to consider since the chance is there.

You have your opinion and you are welcome to it. I feel like Bachmann has already given me far more than I need to know to have my opinion about her. Luckily, there will be more. If you all insist on lumping Palin and Bachmann together for no reason, they will both not be elected president. Try it though. Good luck.

reply to post by Kitilani


I honestly need to hear alot more from Bachmann on specific issues before I can decide if she's a worthy candidate or not. Certainly she's stuck her foot in her mouth more than once but I may just chalk that up to simple mistakes. Every politician makes them and her stances on issues will be more important to me than those other things.

The Palin thing is being brought up because it's likely it could happen and it would be the first time two women ran together so until Bachmann does pick her running mate i'd expect to see this topic alot. Also waiting for the Donald Trump rumors to start up soon too.

I want to hear her justification on the Patriot Act.

As for voting for her? Probably. Unless someone better comes along.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Kitilani

 

I honestly need to hear alot more from Bachmann on specific issues before I can decide if she's a worthy candidate or not. Certainly she's stuck her foot in her mouth more than once but I may just chalk that up to simple mistakes. Every politician makes them and her stances on issues will be more important to me than those other things.

You mean like screaming about "socialism" while she is raking in over $200,000 in government grants and subsidies? That kind of simple mistake? Or the simple mistakes that seem to add up to not knowing anything about any of the topics you speak about? That stuff adds up.

The Palin thing is being brought up because it's likely it could happen and it would be the first time two women ran together so until Bachmann does pick her running mate i'd expect to see this topic alot. Also waiting for the Donald Trump rumors to start up soon too.

I asked several times why other than both having vaginas there is any reason to believe that. No one has come up with even a pretend response yet. There is some political rivalry between the two and they are both women. Other than that there is nothing.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by samcrow
The proof is in the numbers. Look at where she's polling....even after her Iowa 'gaffe,' she's right there with Mitt.

Which makes her 3rd in popularity behind Mitt and Any generic Republican. Forgive me for not seeing much value in being 3rd to NOBODY. Not very impressive.

Like i said, her base doesn't care if she's not being truthful. She's saying all the correct anti-Obama, anti-left, anti-government things they want to hear. Fox will fall in line if and when she pulls ahead of Mitt.

Her base? She can have her entire base vote twice and she will still lose to Obama. Fox got in line behind McCain/Palin right from the get go and how did that work out? I am not sure what numbers you are looking at but Michelle is not exactly a threat and the more she talks, the more she is going to scare independents. The GOP nominee does not need their base, they already have them. Obama does not need his base, he already has them. The winner needs to sway the rest. Bachmann is super popular among the few people that already like Bachmann. Good for her.

That's the thing....I don't think she really believes she's going to win. Bachmann is a calculating opportunist. Palin leveraged her 'fame' into an over extended, mostly irrelevant 15 minutes of quasi-celebrity. Bachmann, on the other hand, is a climber. She's aiming for the nomination, will put up one hell of a fight if she gets it, and in the process drag together a fairly fractured social conservative base (reference the lack of Tea Party 'leadership' and the distancing of moderate fiscal conservatives from this base). She'll still lose, but not before making a whole lot of noise and substantially muddying the waters. After that, she jumps to the Senate, a big corporate job, ambassadorship, etc. She may WANT the presidency, but she's not dumb, and she knows she can't win. But, like with everything she's ever done, she's playing a character as a means to an end....what that end is yet remains to be seen, I think.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Well to be fair, Palin hasn't jumped in the ring yet but if she does I believe you will see her become more focused. There is still alot of time before the election and nobody has really gotten to the heart of issues yet.

--------------
Her movie - The Undefeated - will be playing nationwide at AMC theaters in July 2011.
That might be a great time to jump into the presidential race.
-----------
Obama is already on the ropes. Check the Drudge Report.
The - protest vote is growing - and Obama wants even -more?- stimulus spending?
Rasmussen is throwing cold water right over Obamas head today!

reply to post by Kitilani


Actually there is a valid reason they may run together. They are both heavyweights within the tea party who share similar ideals though not everything.

Bachmann could definetly use the popularity of Palin for votes on the conservative side as Palin is more well known and popular with that bunch.

And Palin may want to give the top office another shot but not be the main focus and take the brunt of the scrutiny although she probably would anyways.

She has also been thouroughly vetted and does have experience running for this position so has a better idea of what to expect this time around.

There is alot more reasons than just both having vagina's. You need to put your bias aside and look at what Bachmann may be thinking about to give her the best shot at winning.

And to judge any candidate at this point is a mistake. Until the republicans pick their nominee and the big debates start everything up to this point doesn't really matter. Both sides have things against them but you need to see them go head to head unless your already convinced of who your voting for.

reply to post by samcrow


Why do you think she can't win?

Obama isn't necessarily getting votes for Mr.popular lately and if she brings some determination and drive and conveys that to the American people I think she stands a good shot. People look around an notice things not getting better and Obama will get blamed for that.

Bachman like any lying dirty politician in this nation was caught deceiving the public as usual because that is what politicians do, is not honesty in politics anymore, she is nothing but another milking hag to benefit from having position of powers and a husband in the right business, most political figures do the same thing.

She just killed her chances for president when she lie about her husband practice and medicare.

reply to post by marg6043


Well the point your missing is that most of America is far more concerned with getting the economy fixed and finding jobs than what her husband is doing. I doubt that if she has a solid plan for that and it's believable they will discard her for whatever lies she may have told.

I don't think people really care what her husband does or doesn't do.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by samcrow

 

Why do you think she can't win?

Obama isn't necessarily getting votes for Mr.popular lately and if she brings some determination and drive and conveys that to the American people I think she stands a good shot. People look around an notice things not getting better and Obama will get blamed for that.

She'll have a very difficult time shoring up the socially liberal, fiscal conservative moderates. She would have to sweep her entire base (possible and somewhat likely) and then pull a TON of moderates over, including some that would otherwise vote left. Ideologically, it's just not palatable, especially for left-leaning voters.

On top of that, even as unpopular as Obama is, very few in that left leaning middle area are going to vote Republican, especially if that Republican is far-right Tea Party supporter. He's a sitting president, which is notoriously difficult to overcome, and she's a House member, and there's never in history been a House member who jumped to the presidency (Garfield was technically a Senator by the time he got elected), so that's another huge hurdle.

A really strong independent candidate that could skim 20% of the moderate electorate would make this race interesting, but I'm not aware of anybody capable of mounting a campaign and pulling north of a fifth of the votes in the general election (and yes, Ron Paul is part of that...he's a 10% guy in the generals tops).

reply to post by samcrow


Good points. It all depends on what her plans are and how she can present it. She would take the base of course and if she presents a solid anti-war platform I think alot of those left leaning people may make the switch. If she isn't preparing this as part of her platfor already i'd be very suprised.

Obama is by no means safe though. People are very frustrated with him at the moment and you can debate all day on whether that is valid or not but it still is the truth. If she can tap into that frustration, or any candidate for that matter, Obama could be in for a tough re-election.

reply to post by kro32


Any politicians can put up a sugar coated plan and convince any gullible voter that is the best thing after apple pie, (Obama did it) and get enough gullible and trusting voters to beliefr, but you and I know that is nothing but lies and that Washington only works for private interest and private interest is all for themselves and screw the tax payer.

With all the facts involving the political crocks we got in the nation we should be boycotting any of them trying to get into government, why? because we all know they lie, they deceive and they are worthless.

I dont think it matters really who is "elected".


If Ron Paul were elected.. just how far do you think he would get implementing anything he has suggested he would given the opposition by all of those who are in the house and congress with their fingers in so many pies? They depend on these shady things... to end them or expose them isnt in their best personal interests... so you think theyd really go along with it? You think he'd have a chance in hell to actually make wide sweeping change in this country? Nothing will happen until we chuck everyone out and start with the average joe citizenry occupying the house and congress.. and not the elite/rich/connected types. I dont believe that will ever happen. If elections were actually valid and Paul had a chance to implement these things he has suggested.. some forget : The majority of our citizenry dont want, have no concept of, and couldnt handle liberty, personal responsibility, and accountability. They dont WANT "freedom" and truly prefer socialistic ideologies.

Hell, I dont even believe elections are valid anymore. I see it on my own city/county level. If things are ran country wide as they are in my state and city, you dont elect anyone in.. its a sham. We have clear cut evidence of buying voted with our county elections.. and no one cares. Not the state.. no one. People have the hard evidence.. and are so complacent all they can manage to do is cluck their tongues and say its such and injustice... and then plug back in. Left versus right? Bah.. they are exactly the same with the exact same goals.. and just present it differently to appeal to your favorite flavor.


When I was a kid my family really got into the elections. My parents were rez born, but they were politically active... as were my grandparents even on the rez. They were investigative of the issues and we actually had election parties.. watched the elections as a family. We had to watch Grandpa closely during the Ferraro ordeal to make sure he didnt have a stroke. I see no one do this now. I see no parents sitting their kids down and watching presidential addresses and election issues. I dont even think the parents know whats going on. Everyone likes to be spoon fed everything and then claim they are leaves blowing in the wind when a candidate is voted in who does badly for the country. Its like dealing with an entire county full of folks with a professional victim complex.... and they cant find the energy to get off of their butts.

You guys might be correct in saying it doesn't matter who we put up there but there are things to consider. Had Gore won and not Bush I doubt we would have went to war with Iraq. Had Mccain won and not Obama I doubt we would have had this health care bill pushed forward.

So there is a difference in who you vote for. Obama would follow a different route than Bachmann would even though they both will be heavily corrupted by special interests. The decision we have to make is what type of form do you want that corruption to take.

Originally posted by kro32
You guys might be correct in saying it doesn't matter who we put up there but there are things to consider. Had Gore won and not Bush I doubt we would have went to war with Iraq. Had Mccain won and not Obama I doubt we would have had this health care bill pushed forward.

So there is a difference in who you vote for. Obama would follow a different route than Bachmann would even though they both will be heavily corrupted by special interests. The decision we have to make is what type of form do you want that corruption to take.

Gore would have done exactly what his handlers/congress/house told him to and what the country went nutty over.. demanding a blood payment. McCains health care plan wasnt all that much different than Obamas of you look into it.

Same show, different channel IMO.