View Full Version : dontcha just kinda want a WOMAN PRESIDENT? *cough* Bachmann *cough* ?????
hehehee
Forget about Bachmann's Policies and Values (if you are against them) for just a moment.
Wouldn't it be pretty cool to have a woman in office!
I think it would be especially interesting to see how she would define the office as a Woman especially with her Conservative Values. I mean....it would be so interesting to see how a woman who values so called traditional values about family and women and such......to see how she would be able to define her role of power.
I mean, there is going to be huge challanges for a woman of either party, but gosh, if a conservative value person can get in to office and be a woman in power, than that means there would be great hope of more women in the future. no?
She's a lunatic. That cancels out any benefit of gender.
iris lily
9-14-11, 12:33am
I think she came off pretty well in the 2 debates I watched, considering that I HAD expected a lunatic according to the bits and pieces of info I got about her. I doubt that she'll be The One and I think she's steering a little to the middle of where she normally likes to be in these debates, but she's a contender.
An American Margaret Thatcher? I don't see any on the horizon.
Centering on Bachmann's response in the last 3 Republican debates ( I saw 2.5 of them) tell me what makes her "lunatic" or *cough* worthy.
She's a psycho religious kook that argues that abnormally large emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide can't be regulated because if we did, birds would lose their natural habitat—air: "Life on planet Earth can't even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that—that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth."
Surely no one takes this nut seriously?
Peace
She's a psycho religious kook that argues that abnormally large emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide can't be regulated because if we did, birds would lose their natural habitat—air: "Life on planet Earth can't even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that—that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth."
Surely no one takes this nut seriously?
Peace
She didn't say that at the debates.
Next.
She didn't say that at the debates.
Next.
At the Tea Party debate she exposed Rick Perry for the con man that he certainly is, I'll give her that. That debate to me showed a very scary side of America. Who are these people? I thought I was viewing a "redneck" convention, seriously.
Peace
Their gender probably matters less than what they believe and what they do. We had a woman Prime Minister from 1979, Margaret Thatcher. There was a satirical TV puppet show at the time which understood this very well, always portraying her in a man's blue pinstripe suit and sometimes smoking a cigar:
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l975sgfr4C1qbj01p.png
IshbelRobertson
9-14-11, 6:37am
I remember having a Spitting Image Maggie mask (de rigeur in Scotland for anti-poll tax marches!)
flowerseverywhere
9-14-11, 8:33am
I watched the debates as well, and the few questions that candidates were asked did little to really show what they believed in.
she is well known for her opinions on the following, which are very controversial.
Anti abortion, including protesting outside of clinics and trying to dissuade women going in from having abortions (sidewalk counseling)
opposed to same sex marriage, including some work with her Husband's clinic of techniques to reverse the disease of homosexuality
wants to open up Alaska to oil drilling
has called Obama "anti-american"
wants to abolish the minimum wage
against the affordable health care act
has called for phasing out Medicare and Social Security
Very Christian stance
right now we have many Americans uninsured, so if the affordable health care act is repealed what happens to them? and I don't understand why abolishing the minimum wage is a good thing. I understand the anti-abortion thing, not that I agree with it. And without Medicare and Social Security where would seniors be with no health care available to them without the affordable health care act? Things just don't add up unless you are wealthy from what I have read. Mostly I fear for those who are not Christian or Homosexual. Please enlighten me if I am missing something or have my facts wrong.
I would love to see a woman elected as President - but NOT her or Palin.
I would love to see a woman elected as President - but NOT her or Palin.
+1
jennipurrr
9-14-11, 10:19am
I didn't catch all of the tea party debate, so I missed the actual part in the debate where she discussed it, but her thoughts after the debate on the Gardasil vaccine seemed extremely fringe to me.
iris lily
9-14-11, 10:54am
I didn't catch all of the tea party debate, so I missed the actual part in the debate where she discussed it, but her thoughts after the debate on the Gardasil vaccine seemed extremely fringe to me.
In the debates Bachmann took the stance of : this is a parent's rights and individual liberty issue, and Perry did wrong in making an executive order for Texas citizens to be vaccinated. And, even Perry agreed that he went about it (requiring this vaccination) in the wrong way.
Knowing very little about the vaccine outside of 3 second summaries, I can say that I would probably have my daughter vaccinated, but I'm not certain. But I am certain that the disease doesn't cause a public health problem and it should not be REQUIRED by law.
But I am certain that the disease doesn't cause a public health problem and it should not be REQUIRED by law.
As I understand it, parents had the option to opt out of the vaccination.
I know this is good political theater, but I can't help but wonder if you had a vaccine that you knew prevented your kids from developing cancer would you support it being available. His executive order made a very expensive vaccine affordable while at the same time allowing anyone who wanted to opt out to do so. I'm not a fan of executive orders, which I think is the real problem with this. It should have been presented as a public health initiative. I think that's what he's apologized for.
wants to open up Alaska to oil drilling
has called Obama "anti-american"
wants to abolish the minimum wage
against the affordable health care act
has called for phasing out Medicare and Social Security
Very Christian stance
You had me at drilling in Alaska!
Gingerella72
9-14-11, 1:57pm
The only woman I would care to see as president right now is Hillary Clinton.
The only woman I would care to see as president right now is Hillary Clinton.
+1 I also think she could beat Obama. Obama is very vulnerable and I think Hillary would have a very good chance of winning against the Republican.
I could see female types like Hilary or Madeline Albright being president. There are MANY reasons I wouldn't want Bachman as pres........the least of which is her fake eyelashes.
She didn't say that at the debates.
Next.
It's what she's said & done the last decade of her career that speak volumes. The debates - meh. Fluff & polished shoes. When I hire someone, I look at their entire career, not just the 30 minutes they spend with me being all shiny and presentation perfect.
Madeline Albright appeared on my radar screen too, but I wouldn't wish our present political climate on her.
Michele Bachmann exhorts her Jehovah God to convert more sheep in a telling audio from 2006. And then all the sheep will be raptured. So really, the environment is irrelevant. So is pretty much everything else, here in the Last Days.
loosechickens
9-14-11, 5:58pm
I agree with Redfox....I formed my opinion of Michelle Bachmann (and it is NOT a good opinion) of her whole career, her writings and speeches before she was running for President, not "Michelle Bachmann the Candidate for President" who has been polished, presented and packaged by some VERY expensive consultants for the campaign and these debates.
Nope....I'd love to see an American President that was a woman, but compentency and depth mean a lot more to me than gender. And Michelle Bachmann just is NOT my idea of compentency and depth.......
While she does seem to have a bit more intellect than Sarah Palin, honestly, if I were a conservative, I'd be embarassed that these two women were presenting the face of "conservative women", as opposed to some others, from Condoleeza Rice to Kay Bailey Hutchinson and others. JMHO
Because to me, if Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin represent what is best and worthy about conservative women, believe me, I want nowhere near that.
poetry_writer
9-14-11, 9:49pm
I agree with Redfox....I formed my opinion of Michelle Bachmann (and it is NOT a good opinion) of her whole career, her writings and speeches before she was running for President, not "Michelle Bachmann the Candidate for President" who has been polished, presented and packaged by some VERY expensive consultants for the campaign and these debates.
Nope....I'd love to see an American President that was a woman, but compentency and depth mean a lot more to me than gender. And Michelle Bachmann just is NOT my idea of compentency and depth.......
While she does seem to have a bit more intellect than Sarah Palin, honestly, if I were a conservative, I'd be embarassed that these two women were presenting the face of "conservative women", as opposed to some others, from Condoleeza Rice to Kay Bailey Hutchinson and others. JMHO
Because to me, if Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin represent what is best and worthy about conservative women, believe me, I want nowhere near that.
A common comment. However no one ever says exactly why these women are considered brainless and clueless. Got anything specific? Or do you just disagree with them?
iris lily
9-14-11, 10:03pm
A common comment. However no one ever says exactly why these women are considered brainless and clueless. Got anything specific? Or do you just disagree with them?
The terms "brainless" and "clueless" weren't used here in this thread although I'll grant you, "lunatic" figured prominently.
poetry_writer
9-14-11, 10:49pm
The terms "brainless" and "clueless" weren't used here in this thread although I'll grant you, "lunatic" figured prominently.
ok. Substitute "lunatic" for brainless and clueless. Again, what makes you think that?
loosechickens
9-15-11, 1:07am
I didn't say brainless and clueless, and I didn't say lunatic. I said that I do not think that either of these women has the intellect, grasp of complex issues or the depth of knowledge that one would expect in a person seeking the highest office in this country of 300,000,000 people. I said that if I were a conservative, I would be embarassed to have these two women to stand as the best examples of conservative women. That's my personal opinion. And as much as I would like to see a woman be President, even if these two women did NOT hold the views they hold, but were (god forbid) liberals, I still wouldn't vote for either one of them. I would consider both of them to be supremely unqualified to be President of the United States.
Hey, if you are a conservative woman, poetry_writer, and I'm assuming you are, if you are happy to have either of these women represent the best and brightest of conservative women, have at it. It's not for me to judge.
I didn't say brainless and clueless, and I didn't say lunatic...€
I know you didn't say that. Nor did I. Perhaps the person who did say "lunatic" will 'splain.
personally, i don't find the women brainless or clueless, but i have serious qualms with their particular political stances and how i understand and interpret the constitution.
and please note, that i did go to law school and graduate quite high in my class, even though i now "just teach yoga." one of my favorite classes was constitutional law, and quite honestly, i really like Justice Scalia's statements in most cases -- so I take a very conservative view of the constitution.
that being said, much of what the republican party, the tea party (tea partiers?), and various versions of theocons these days are selling is NOT what republicanism was/is (See Invasion of the Party Snatchers (http://www.amazon.com/Invasion-Party-Snatchers-Holy-Rollers-Destroyed/dp/B005DIA40A/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316061846&sr=1-1) by Gold) nor do they seem to have a firm grasp on the constitution or fiscal responsibility, or several other pillars of conservatism and republicanism.
So, right there, for the most part, they are simply right out of my radar.
Which sadly leaves me with democrats -- who, oddly enough, have done a great deal to balance the budget in their days (clinton) which really looks a heck of a lot like fiscal responsibility, and then of course, they talk about having a dialogue and actually protecting the constitution.
Truly, it's all madness.
Now, the flip side -- or part of this question really -- is wouldn't it be great to have a woman president? Yes, it would be fine and dandy. I don't know how gender/sex plays into the voting aspect, it doesn't really for me. I think that Clinton is a decent choice -- the woman has education, she's been quite consistent lo these many years in her aspirations and actions, and you gotta credit that.
I would also wager, though, that there are conservative women out there who are just as learned, just as credentialed, and just as capable, without being truly on the fringe of the fringe, who could be put forward.
I mean, I thought Palin was a really sad choice, to be sure. Reason being -- she's so new to politics in general and not educated in the law (as many politicians are). She isn't un-intelligent or without a great deal of personal charisma as well as -- i believe -- character (by that I mean integrity, not color), but I would say that she certainly wasn't ready for the national stage at that point, and in my opinion, is far too inexperienced to really handle a national office, unless she went for several terms in congress or something similar. But, she seems to prefer the executive branch, i guess. :)
With Bachmann, you at least have a woman with credentials and a long career in government -- first as a tax lawyer for the IRS, then in minnesota legislature, and then again in the national legislature. This bodes quite nicely, actually, because it means that she at least has a firm grasp on the constitution via her education, and how the system as a whole works.
Unfortunately, i have to disagree with her particular support of the idea that the constitution clearly states that the US is a theocracy, and thus should return to that. (rolling stone article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622)).
Of course, nearly any *true conservative* in the political sense would absolutely disagree, because the founding fathers were clearly NOT setting up a theocracy, which is partly what they'd come from (a constitutional monarchy with a tie-in with the church of england). So, they were pretty firm on this point -- both in the writing AND in the history, but then who really needs to know about that?
End of the day, I think that there are women -- from a variety of parties and backgrounds -- who have the chops to be a good president.
I plan on voting for the incumbent, unless someone truly better presents themselves. Bachmann certainly isn't convincing to me, by her politics or her gender.
thanks zoebird, that was a good summary of why you don't like Bachmann, I get that.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is continuing to denounce what she says is a pattern of government takeovers of the economy -- going so far as to say that the economy used to be totally private.
"And what we saw this Tuesday, once the president signed the health care bill at the 11th hour in the morning on Tuesday, that effected 51% government takeover of the private economy," Bachmann said on Wednesday, during an interview with North Dakota talk radio host Scott Hennen. "It is really quite sobering what has happened. From 100% of our economy was private prior to September of 2008, but as of Tuesday, the federal government has now taken ownership or control of 51% of the private economy."
Before September 2008 -- presumably in reference to the TARP bailout of Wall Street -- one hundred percent of the economy was private? Bachmann has previously made the tautological statement 100% of the "private economy" was private at a given time, but now she's starting to go even further.
Bachmann also accused the Democrats and the media of smearing the Tea Partiers who came to Washington for the health care vote last weekend, by fabricating claims of misbehavior. "The media wants you to believe that tea party patriots are toothless hillbillies," said Bachmann, who instead cast the tea partiers as intelligent, educated and professional people. "This is a very sophisticated crowd. And then these charges from Democrats that they were spit upon, that there were racial epithets -- there's no one who saw anything."
(Via Minnesota Independent)
iris lily
9-15-11, 10:20am
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is continuing to denounce what she says is a pattern of government takeovers of the economy -- going so far as to say that the economy used to be totally private.
"And what we saw this Tuesday, once the president signed the health care bill at the 11th hour in the morning on Tuesday, that effected 51% government takeover of the private economy," Bachmann said on Wednesday, during an interview with North Dakota talk radio host Scott Hennen. "It is really quite sobering what has happened. From 100% of our economy was private prior to September of 2008, but as of Tuesday, the federal government has now taken ownership or control of 51% of the private economy."
Before September 2008 -- presumably in reference to the TARP bailout of Wall Street -- one hundred percent of the economy was private? Bachmann has previously made the tautological statement 100% of the "private economy" was private at a given time, but now she's starting to go even further.
Bachmann also accused the Democrats and the media of smearing the Tea Partiers who came to Washington for the health care vote last weekend, by fabricating claims of misbehavior. "The media wants you to believe that tea party patriots are toothless hillbillies," said Bachmann, who instead cast the tea partiers as intelligent, educated and professional people. "This is a very sophisticated crowd. And then these charges from Democrats that they were spit upon, that there were racial epithets -- there's no one who saw anything."
(Via Minnesota Independent)
I don't understand the numbers of private business vs. government business in this quote, that's nonsensical. I suspect there's a who lot of context the Minnesota Independent didn't capture. But as far as Bachman's characterization of the tea party group, why, that's right on! We ARE smart, educated, and sophisticated! What's not to like there!???
poetry_writer
9-15-11, 2:11pm
I didn't say brainless and clueless, and I didn't say lunatic. I said that I do not think that either of these women has the intellect, grasp of complex issues or the depth of knowledge that one would expect in a person seeking the highest office in this country of 300,000,000 people. I said that if I were a conservative, I would be embarassed to have these two women to stand as the best examples of conservative women. That's my personal opinion. And as much as I would like to see a woman be President, even if these two women did NOT hold the views they hold, but were (god forbid) liberals, I still wouldn't vote for either one of them. I would consider both of them to be supremely unqualified to be President of the United States.
Hey, if you are a conservative woman, poetry_writer, and I'm assuming you are, if you are happy to have either of these women represent the best and brightest of conservative women, have at it. It's not for me to judge.
So its just your personal opinion. I am glad you admitted that. You gave absolutely no evidence however that either one of the women lacks intellect or grasp of complex issues.
I agree with Redfox....I formed my opinion of Michelle Bachmann (and it is NOT a good opinion) of her whole career, her writings and speeches before she was running for President, not "Michelle Bachmann the Candidate for President" who has been polished, presented and packaged by some VERY expensive consultants for the campaign and these debates.
Nope....I'd love to see an American President that was a woman, but compentency and depth mean a lot more to me than gender. And Michelle Bachmann just is NOT my idea of compentency and depth.......
While she does seem to have a bit more intellect than Sarah Palin, honestly, if I were a conservative, I'd be embarassed that these two women were presenting the face of "conservative women", as opposed to some others, from Condoleeza Rice to Kay Bailey Hutchinson and others. JMHO
Because to me, if Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin represent what is best and worthy about conservative women, believe me, I want nowhere near that.
Ditto, ditto, ditto, and ditto. I believe that there are "what I would consider" to be much better qualified women - both GOP and Dems - then either Bachmann or Palin. You named two. And while I prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton, I feel that she would be a much better choice than anyone - male or female - that the GOP have running at this time.
Maxamillion
9-15-11, 2:26pm
Unfortunately, i have to disagree with her particular support of the idea that the constitution clearly states that the US is a theocracy, and thus should return to that. (rolling stone article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622)).
This is one of my main reasons for not wanting her to be president. I strongly believe in separation of church and state.
So its just your personal opinion. I am glad you admitted that. You gave absolutely no evidence however that either one of the women lacks intellect or grasp of complex issues.
It's all just personal opinion.
loosechickens
9-15-11, 3:40pm
"With Bachmann, you at least have a woman with credentials and a long career in government -- first as a tax lawyer for the IRS, then in minnesota legislature, and then again in the national legislature. This bodes quite nicely, actually, because it means that she at least has a firm grasp on the constitution via her education, and how the system as a whole works.
Unfortunately, i have to disagree with her particular support of the idea that the constitution clearly states that the US is a theocracy, and thus should return to that. (rolling stone article)." (zoebird)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
as an attorney yourself, I'm sure you understand that there are "lawyers" and then there are "lawyers".
Michelle Bachmann's grasp of and view of the Constitution may have been influenced by the law school where she was educated, which was (the unaccredited Coburn School of Law at Oral Roberts University, which afterward became CBN, and is now Regents, rated as a Tier 4 school, the lowest ranking of law schools, but still with the same religious focus), which was specifically started to teach law according to "biblical principles" and took a very theocratic stance on everything to do with the law.
She did go on to an accredited school after she received her law degree from Coburn, for tax law. But it is clear that her reasons for choosing the unaccredited Coburn school was because of its theocratic focus. And that is where she polished her theocratic views of the Constitution.
I believe that both Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin show ample evidence of lack of intellect and grasp of issues by simply listening to them, reading their writings, and looking at the reasoning behind their opinions on issues. If someone can study them and still believe them to be capable and qualified, then go ahead and vote for them if you get the chance. This is America, after all, where anybody might become President. Neither of these ladies are people I'D want to see in the Oval Office, but if one feels differently, speak with your vote. I plan to do so.
I don't personally feel they lack the intellect or inability to grasp the issues, but their stance on the issues (and their reasoning behind it) is just plain different from mine.
loosechickens,
well, i don't put much stock in where a person goes to school per se as i've met lawyers who are stoopid about everything and go to high-falutin' schools and lawyers who go to less fancy school (though accredited) and are really excellent at their job. a lot of the time, it's just the individual.
but, i have to say that the school is "iffy" and particularly their stance on everything, and you are right, you have to WANT to study from that perspective to pay for an unaccredited education at a low-ranked school. BUT she then did go on to some decent schools (william and mary being quite good) and did get further education, though I doubt she touched on constitutional law once there, though, to be honest. LLM programs are usually highly focused, and it seems that she didn't focus on constitutional law.
So, yeah. I mean, it's great that she has *an* education, but it's perspective isn't really the way that I believe the constitution IS written, nor would I want someone in office who thinks that.
Wildflower
9-19-11, 11:54pm
Bachman - No! Hillary Clinton - Yes!
My personal philosophy of vaccines is to avoid them unless I am otherwise at high risk of developing a life-threatening disease. No one really knows what the end result will be of the kind of wholesale shoot-em-ups we're seeing now--even of tiny infants who are still operating with their maternal immune system in place.
According to the CDC, cervical cancer death rates in this country are 2.4 per 100,000. Early detection via Pap smears and other methods go a long way towards bringing the toll down. Apparently 80% of us carry HPV, most of us without incident.
I'm old enough to remember DES, Thalidomide, and even therapeutic lobotomies, so I'm not inclined to view "state of the art medical intervention" with rose-colored glasses. And the situation is even worse now that it's driven by profit over all else. I'm with the Libertarians on having the government decide for me which treatments I will have. To hell with them.
iris lily
9-23-11, 12:35am
My personal philosophy of vaccines is to avoid them unless I am otherwise at high risk of developing a life-threatening disease. No one really knows what the end result will be of the kind of wholesale shoot-em-ups we're seeing now--even of tiny infants who are still operating with their maternal immune system in place.
According to the CDC, cervical cancer death rates in this country are 2.4 per 100,000. Early detection via Pap smears and other methods go a long way towards bringing the toll down. Apparently 80% of us carry HPV, most of us without incident.
I'm old enough to remember DES, Thalidomide, and even therapeutic lobotomies, so I'm not inclined to view "state of the art medical intervention" with rose-colored glasses. And the situation is even worse now that it's driven by profit over all else. I'm with the Libertarians on having the government decide for me which treatments I will have. To hell with them.
I think the government has a right to promote a vaccinated population for highly contagious diseases, but I'm not convinced that this fits. I would probably have my teenage daughter vaccinated. But that's me making the decision, not Nanny G.
In tonight's debate Bachmann minimized an idea attributed to her, that the vaccine is link to mental retardation, but she came out strong against the government usurping parental rights when states require it.
I think the government has a right to promote a vaccinated population for highly contagious diseases, but I'm not convinced that this fits. I would probably have my teenage daughter vaccinated. But that's me making the decision, not Nanny G.
In tonight's debate Bachmann minimized an idea attributed to her, that the vaccine is link to mental retardation, but she came out strong against the government usurping parental rights when states require it.
She didn't just 'minimize' it. She came right out and said she didn't say that. Does she realize that she was on camera when she said it? Don't these people realize these new fangled devices can record your words, exactly as you say them? With moving pictures and everything! :0! But, just as with Sarah Palin, there are plenty of people who will try to alter the reality of what she said.
Frankly, I think it's a good idea to add this vaccine to the line up that young people take now. My daughter was vaccinated and I can't believe anyone who cares for their daughters wouldn't want this. But I think there are those, believe it or not, who have religious objections to this. I guess they don't want to think of their daughter as having sex, even thought they obviously did, and helping them to be protected from a sexually transmitted disease will somehow make them promiscuous.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.