Michelle Bachman announces her candidacy for preisdent, page 5


Pages: <<  2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 29-6-2011 @ 11:08 AM by kro32
reply to post by Advantage


I can almost guarantee you that we would have done something had Gore been President but it wouldn't have been to the extreme as Bush did. It would have been very different and I doubt we would have the Patriot Act today.

However had Gore been President you would have seen a major change in Enviromental aspects that you didn't see under Bush. It's a very different show.

Who sit's in that office in the White House dictates to a degree the issues the country will take on. They may have little say on if they get implemented or not but that's not their main job. The Presidents job is to set the course for the nation and that course can take radically different paths depending on who is doing it.


reply posted on 29-6-2011 @ 11:56 AM by Advantage
Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Advantage


I can almost guarantee you that we would have done something had Gore been President but it wouldn't have been to the extreme as Bush did. It would have been very different and I doubt we would have the Patriot Act today.

However had Gore been President you would have seen a major change in Enviromental aspects that you didn't see under Bush. It's a very different show.

Who sit's in that office in the White House dictates to a degree the issues the country will take on. They may have little say on if they get implemented or not but that's not their main job. The Presidents job is to set the course for the nation and that course can take radically different paths depending on who is doing it.


Just IMO, but bush didnt wake up one day and poop out the patriot act. It was signed by him, but those who crafted it would have gotten it passed regardless of who was in office.. one way or the other. Gore is as much of a hipster doofus as Bush was.. and as Obama is.

The presidents job is SUPPOSED ot be to set the course.. hasnt really been that way in my almost 50 yrs.. although they keep pretending it is.


reply posted on 29-6-2011 @ 01:18 PM by samcrow
Originally posted by kro32
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.


Her interventionist stance on gay marriage and abortion, I think, would sway most left-leaning people away from her rather quickly, regardless of how she comes down on overseas conflict. That coupled with her heavy association with the Tea Party, and I think you have too many negatives to be overcome by one or two 'liberal' issues, and that's assuming she went 'liberal' on those things in the first place.

What fascinates me about her is that, by all accounts, she shouldn't even be a contender. She has virtually no record, and what record she has (bolstered by comments to the press) is fairly fringe right and often self-contradictory. But, it's difficult to argue with success and, even though it's really early in the race, running at a statistical tie with a guy like Romney says something.

Also, what I've yet to figure out is why the GOP doesn't get serious about shoring up the middle. It'll never happen with the social conservatives as mouthpieces....they need to find a pre-Reagan, socially liberal, small government, true fiscal conservative that doesn't come off like a nut. I think the public on both sides of the aisle is desperately looking for somebody like that (look at where Ron Paul's numbers are, for example...he's getting a lot of traction among even fairly middle of the road, politically disinterested people) and if the GOP could produce one, they'd have it in a bag. Why they continue down this road of extremist social policy is beyond me, especially in a country where those winds began to shift left two decades ago or better.

As far as Obama, I often wondered if Hillary would come out of nowhere and challenge him for the nomination...she's almost too old by 2016, and if we keep going the way we're going, it'll be a tough race for dems AND republicans by then. Her chance is now, but it's not looking like she's going to do it. There are plenty of dems that are dissatisfied with Obama, both in the legislature and in the general public, so it's a viable scenario for the right person....but it seems that, like the republicans, the dems are set on staying the course with a bad candidate.

This election is going to be very interesting....and potentially incredibly divisive.



reply posted on 29-6-2011 @ 04:35 PM by kro32
reply to post by samcrow


Naw Hillary will be there in 2016 and will be a slam dunk no matter who's in the running. She's padding her resume right now and she'll be plenty young and vibrant enough to run for office.

She would have won last time if Obama didn't surge out of nowhere and I don't think she's going to quit before she makes another attempt.
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Ron Paul Won (Great Read) - Huffington Post
  Posted 13 days ago with 127 member flags
Texas GOP Mutiny - SC, VA, LA and Others May Join
  Posted 15 days ago with 83 member flags
A Common Man\'s Guide to the Federal Budget.
  Posted 3 days ago with 51 member flags
*VID* Ron Paul delegates speak out from RNC.
  Posted 8 days ago with 39 member flags