Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ticket to beat Obama

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,973 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    matthew8 wrote: »
    And Cain wants to continue Bush's policies. Bachmann has some integrity at least.
    Not total integrity:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#Religion
    Bachmann was a longtime member of Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater. She and her husband withdrew their membership on June 21, 2011, just before she officially began her presidential campaign. They had not attended the congregation for over two years.[22][23] Salem Lutheran Church is a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. When challenged about that denomination's belief that the Pope is the Antichrist,[24][25][26][27] Bachmann responded by stating, "I love Catholics, I'm a Christian, and my church does not believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, that's absolutely false."[28] More recently, according to friends, the Bachmanns began attending Eagle Brook Church, an Evangelical church closer to their home.[29]
    Basically just trying to avoid another Reverend Wright, and to attract the huge Evangelical voter base.


  • Options
    #33
    matthew8
    Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    Overheal wrote: »
    Not total integrity:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#Religion

    Basically just trying to avoid another Reverend Wright, and to attract the huge Evangelical voter base.

    But of course, she's a politician after all. I would even take Huntsman over Cain.


  • Options
    #34
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    I would so much rather have Bachmann or Palin than Romney or Perry. Sadly, Bachmann is tied with Giu9/11liani for fourth place at the moment.


  • Options
    #35
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,973 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Palin won't run, and if she does she's crazy.

    If she wanted to stay in Politics she should have either remained governor or run for congress.


  • Options
    #36
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    :pac:

    You seem to think that the only reason to run for president is to actually become president. That's funny!

    (Just FYI, she's currently in 3rd place behind Romney and Perry.)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    matthew8
    Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    gargleblaster wrote: »
    I would so much rather have Bachmann or Palin than Romney or Perry. Sadly, Bachmann is tied with Giu9/11liani for fourth place at the moment.

    Nationally maybe, but she leads in Iowa, where it counts.


  • Options
    #38
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    matthew8 wrote: »
    Nationally maybe, but she leads in Iowa, where it counts.

    Hah! She's leaving Romney in the dust there, isn't she?

    Yee haw!


  • Options
    #39
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,965 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    Well, Newsweek likes Bachmann:

    Bachmann-thumb-400x541-47663.jpg

    (click for MSNBC report on the cover)

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Options
    #40
    sarumite
    Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    matthew8 wrote: »
    This Herman Cain chap really is useless, I remember I watched the SC debate, going in I knew all about Paul and Johnson, and throughout the entire debate I could not figure out what Cain/Pawlenty stood for, at least I was able to figure out what Santorum stood for. Then after the debate SCers called Cain a straight-talker! All this despite the fact he has no track record and dodged most question in the debate. People in SC are a little bit slow however, it was the kingmaker last time for McCain. Herman Cain is dead in the water now though.

    Lolz, I used to have to listen to Herman Cain in the morning (he was right after Neal Boortz) as that was the radio that was on at work. He makes a goot talk show host, not sure about prez though.


  • Options
    #41
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    bnt wrote: »
    Well, Newsweek likes Bachmann:

    Bachmann-thumb-400x541-47663.jpg

    (click for MSNBC report on the cover)

    I am no fan of Michelle Bachmann, but that cover is a disgrace. That's even worse that the Sarah Palin jogging cover.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,029 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Doubt Bachman or Paul will get the nomination.
    Bachmann might be popular with the teabaggers and the fiscal conservatives but her views on social issues would totallly alienate the centre and social liberals (especially her outdated and bizarre views on homosexuality)

    Paul would make a better president and has the bonus of integrity but he'd run into opposition from his own party, for example from Republicans anxious for the military vote and for those representing areas reliant on federal agri-subsidies.


    Romney or Giuliani could swing it as both would appeal to the moderate voters although Romney could get flak for his fairly liberal running of Massachussets.


  • Options
    #43
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Hmmm... Lets see how Newsweek treated Barack Obama on it's covers.

    ZZ67249B1E.jpg

    Fair... I THINK NOT!

    And while we're at it lets look at our other "honorable" media treatment of Obama.

    halo3.jpg

    Looks like with the Tina Brown take over of Newsweek, the once proud publication has become a Liberal version of the National Enquirer.

    And the mainstream media should now (not to be confused with N.O.W. anymore, who FINALLY grew a pair and voiced concern as to the treatment by the media of these women) be deamed "The Conservative Woman Haters Club" IMO.


  • Options
    #44
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,973 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I wouldn't be too quick to believe that last image you posted Amerika. I'd rather see the images tied to their media. I mean hell did you notice you got the one put in there that someone on the web photoshopped with the angel halo? And one appears to be The Blessed Virgin. If the media was trying to portray Obama in that shot, they got more than several key details wrong!

    I see two actual covers in there: Rolling Stone (fine) and TIME, which I can't even decipher in 20 square pixels or less.

    What would be 'fair' in portraying Michelle Bachman? Photoshop her crow feet?


  • Options
    #45
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Overheal... since you're pixely challenged, here is just Time Magazine's treatment of Barack Obama.
    obamatime.jpeg
    What would be 'fair' in portraying Michelle Bachman? Photoshop her crow feet?

    How about something as simple as this...

    ZZ6DB38D10.jpg

    And remember when USA Today had to admit they demonized the look of Condi Rice.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2005/10/26/demonizing-condi/


  • Options
    #46
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,973 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I dont think the cover in 3x3 was meant to be flattering :)

    Get real though it doesnt matter how defined or undefined Obama's face is in any of these pictures or how many wrinkles and warts he has showing the guy still takes a good photo. He's Photogenic. Bachman just, isn't. Even that one you have there makes her look like part of a wax exhibit. Maybe they need to take cues from photos of Hillary, she's almost always giving a speech off angle in all of her media photos.




    ....






    This thread has gotten ridiculous, hasnt it?


  • Options
    #47
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Overheal wrote: »
    I wouldn't be too quick to believe that last image you posted Amerika. I'd rather see the images tied to their media. I mean hell did you notice you got the one put in there that someone on the web photoshopped with the angel halo? And one appears to be The Blessed Virgin. If the media was trying to portray Obama in that shot, they got more than several key details wrong!

    I see two actual covers in there: Rolling Stone (fine) and TIME, which I can't even decipher in 20 square pixels or less.

    What would be 'fair' in portraying Michelle Bachman? Photoshop her crow feet?

    when they used Palin I remember the right flipping because you could see her pores. yet every time they do Obama they flip again saying they are flattering him.
    It's like crazy land.


  • Options
    #48
    deepertheroots
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭deepertheroots


    Can't wait till Paul wins the Ames straw poll on Saturday! None of the other candidates have the intelligence, integrity and honesty as this man.


  • Options
    #49
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Amerika wrote: »
    ZZ6DB38D10.jpg

    Who knew that Bachman was an auton.


  • Options
    #50
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Doubt Bachman or Paul will get the nomination.
    Bachmann might be popular with the teabaggers and the fiscal conservatives but her views on social issues would totallly alienate the centre and social liberals (especially her outdated and bizarre views on homosexuality)

    Paul is described as the intellectual godfather of the Tea Party, so he could easily attract the fiscal conservative vote. He also wants to end the war on drugs, therefore appealing to the social liberals. He's also pro-life and believes the abortion is a states issue which could attract the social conservative vote.
    Paul would make a better president and has the bonus of integrity but he'd run into opposition from his own party, for example from Republicans anxious for the military vote and for those representing areas reliant on federal agri-subsidies.

    Are we talking about the troops or people in favour of a large military budget?

    At the end of the day Republicans are going to vote for whoever gets the Republican nomination. The important question is, who can attract the independents and disillusioned Democrats? As far as I can see Paul has the best chance of doing that.
    Romney or Giuliani could swing it as both would appeal to the moderate voters although Romney could get flak for his fairly liberal running of Massachussets.

    Is Giuliani running?

    I can't see Romney getting the nomination. When candidates start attacking each other in debates and bringing up Romneys running of Massachussets, especially "Romneycare", his ratings are going to start falling.


  • Options
    #51
    sarumite
    Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    Suryavarman wrote: »
    Paul is described as the intellectual godfather of the Tea Party, so he could easily attract the fiscal conservative vote

    Though Paul has integrity and would cut expenditure that appeals to conservatives, whereas the current group of republicans who call themselves Tea partiers don't have integrity and favour selective cuts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    sarumite wrote: »
    ...whereas the current group of republicans who call themselves Tea partiers don't have integrity...

    I'm part of the Tea Party. Help me out here... when and how did I lose my integrity? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #53
    sarumite
    Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    Amerika wrote: »
    I'm part of the Tea Party. Help me out here... when and how did I lose my integrity? :rolleyes:

    To be quite frank, you didn't have it to begin with (not you the singular, you the plural). The current group of republicans who call themselves tea partiers were no where in sight back in the day when Cheney was harping on about deficits don't matter. You (again plural, not singular) shout about deficit reduction, yet the new house rules of "cut/go" as opposed "pay/go" actually make it easier for the deficit to rise. The current debt deal showed that they would rather a higher deficit as long as it meant no taxation. The actual tea partiers back in the late 18th century were not against taxation as their famous chant was "no taxation without represenation"....the current shout (and I paraphrase here) "no taxation......but don't touch the military budget either". I may not like Ron Paul's politics, but he is a true libertarian and I respect him for that....the astroturfing tea party are merely riding on his coat tales.


  • Options
    #54
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    Yeah, that Newsweek cover was atrocious.

    She may not be as photogenic as Obama but any idiot could see that this
    Amerika wrote: »
    ZZ6DB38D10.jpg

    is much nicer than the pic they went with.


  • Options
    #55
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,029 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Suryavarman wrote: »
    Paul is described as the intellectual godfather of the Tea Party, so he could easily attract the fiscal conservative vote. He also wants to end the war on drugs, therefore appealing to the social liberals. He's also pro-life and believes the abortion is a states issue which could attract the social conservative vote.
    The very reasons you're claiming groups might support him are reasons why others might not. Ending the war on drugs might appeal to some social liberals but they'd be turned off by his refusal to guarantee abortion, flag burning or same-sex marriage. Likewise, the Moral Majority types might love his personal conservatism but be turned off by his refusal to use federal power to tide over their views, likewise his desire to end the War on Drugs.

    Plus his economic views are very radical. Not something that the centre and Independents are likely to support.
    Suryavarman wrote: »
    Are we talking about the troops or people in favour of a large military budget?
    Both really, you'd be hard pressed to maintain military support while downsizing the heavily funded American military,
    Suryavarman wrote: »
    At the end of the day Republicans are going to vote for whoever gets the Republican nomination. The important question is, who can attract the independents and disillusioned Democrats? As far as I can see Paul has the best chance of doing that.
    He's too extreme for the centre, especially independent and disillusioned Democrats (who'd be much more attracted to centrists like Romney.
    Suryavarman wrote: »
    Is Giuliani running?

    I can't see Romney getting the nomination. When candidates start attacking each other in debates and bringing up Romneys running of Massachussets, especially "Romneycare", his ratings are going to start falling.
    Indeed but he could put himself forward as a moderate Republican and one with a track record of working bipartisan. Something highly appealing in an America as polarised as it is today.


  • Options
    #56
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    Lockstep wrote: »
    The very reasons you're claiming groups might support him are reasons why others might not. Ending the war on drugs might appeal to some social liberals but they'd be turned off by his refusal to guarantee abortion, flag burning or same-sex marriage. Likewise, the Moral Majority types might love his personal conservatism but be turned off by his refusal to use federal power to tide over their views, likewise his desire to end the War on Drugs.

    The fact that he can get elected(easily) in a coastal area of the bible belt while espousing the more socially liberal views and opposing federal flood insurance suggests he can overcome voters anxieties. His ability to get the support of Bill Maher(hardly renowned for his conservatism) would also suggest that he could win votes from the left.
    Plus his economic views are very radical. Not something that the centre and Independents are likely to support.

    Let's be fair here, Obama's handling of the economy thus far has been poor. With the credit downgrade and the performance of the stock exchange the last few days, it looks like things are going to get worse. If the US is in a worse place this time next year, Obama will officially become the second coming of Jimmy Carter. Obama's platform of "I made the economy worse and broke every promise I made about the wars and social policy" versus Paul's platform of "I predicted the crisis and predicted that the government would make it worse but I have the antidote" will definitely win over the independents. He also has the advantage of doing better in a theoretical run off against Obama(according to polls) than the rest of the named Republicans.
    Both really, you'd be hard pressed to maintain military support while downsizing the heavily funded American military,

    I don't think he's advocating downsizing the military numbers but instead ending the wars and closing down foreign bases. Also The amount of funding he receives from the troops more than speaks for itself. From the first quarter of fundraising he managed to raise more than Obama, he also managed to raise more than double all the other Republicans combined.
    He's too extreme for the centre, especially independent and disillusioned Democrats (who'd be much more attracted to centrists like Romney.

    I think the rest of points deal with the first part.

    As for Romney, come voting time, I don't think he offers enough change to get votes.
    Indeed but he could put himself forward as a moderate Republican and one with a track record of working bipartisan. Something highly appealing in an America as polarised as it is today.

    Good point, the only way to find out is to wait and see I suppose.


  • Options
    #57
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,264 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Talk of Rick Perry having a crack at it. Press conference this Saturday, I believe.

    NTM


  • Options
    #58
    bradlente
    Registered Users Posts: 2,911 ✭✭✭bradlente


    http://media.syracuse.com/news/photo/8976844-large.jpg

    Thats a beard worthy of the presidency.:pac:


    Ron Paul has some interesting views that could cost him in the long run.I still think Obama has a fighting chance though,Some of the candidates on the right look like horrible choices to me.


  • Options
    #59
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,029 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Suryavarman wrote: »
    The fact that he can get elected(easily) in a coastal area of the bible belt while espousing the more socially liberal views and opposing federal flood insurance suggests he can overcome voters anxieties. His ability to get the support of Bill Maher(hardly renowned for his conservatism) would also suggest that he could win votes from the left.
    No, it really doesn't. Getting elected in an area as conservative as Texas is one thing, getting elected for the US is a whole different kettle of fish.

    He hasn't gotten the support of Maher, Maher said he prefers him to the other Republicans (if he had to pick one Republican)
    I preferred McCain to the other Republican candidates in 2008, it still doesn't mean I supported him.
    Suryavarman wrote: »
    Let's be fair here, Obama's handling of the economy thus far has been poor. With the credit downgrade and the performance of the stock exchange the last few days, it looks like things are going to get worse. If the US is in a worse place this time next year, Obama will officially become the second coming of Jimmy Carter. Obama's platform of "I made the economy worse and broke every promise I made about the wars and social policy" versus Paul's platform of "I predicted the crisis and predicted that the government would make it worse but I have the antidote" will definitely win over the independents. He also has the advantage of doing better in a theoretical run off against Obama(according to polls) than the rest of the named Republicans.
    Pretty much every politician will say that they predicted the crisis and have a solution. Hell, the CPUSA have that going for them. Paul's policies are very very radical. He's not proposing a few tax cuts and liberalisation but a rampant downscaling and elimination of federal agencies, the IRS, income tax and the Fed.
    Regardless of how bad the economy is, this doesn't mean that most Independents and moderates will agree with him.

    Suryavarman wrote: »
    I don't think he's advocating downsizing the military numbers but instead ending the wars and closing down foreign bases. Also The amount of funding he receives from the troops more than speaks for itself. From the first quarter of fundraising he managed to raise more than Obama, he also managed to raise more than double all the other Republicans combined.
    Hmmm, fair point.
    Suryavarman wrote: »
    I think the rest of points deal with the first part.

    As for Romney, come voting time, I don't think he offers enough change to get votes.
    Possibly, but I think one thing he can offer is a different sort of hope, one where the two sides can work together which would be highly appealing


  • Options
    #60
    deepertheroots
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭deepertheroots


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Talk of Rick Perry having a crack at it. Press conference this Saturday, I believe.

    NTM

    Ah yes the so-called tea partier, also an ex-democrat and past member of Al Gore's democrat team. He also attended this years Bilderberg meetings in Turkey, like so many past presidents and prime ministers did before they were elected.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    sarumite wrote: »
    To be quite frank, you didn't have it to begin with (not you the singular, you the plural). The current group of republicans who call themselves tea partiers were no where in sight back in the day when Cheney was harping on about deficits don't matter. You (again plural, not singular) shout about deficit reduction, yet the new house rules of "cut/go" as opposed "pay/go" actually make it easier for the deficit to rise. The current debt deal showed that they would rather a higher deficit as long as it meant no taxation. The actual tea partiers back in the late 18th century were not against taxation as their famous chant was "no taxation without represenation"....the current shout (and I paraphrase here) "no taxation......but don't touch the military budget either". I may not like Ron Paul's politics, but he is a true libertarian and I respect him for that....the astroturfing tea party are merely riding on his coat tales.

    Hmmmm….

    Roughly 25% of American adults consider themselves “Tea Partiers”… with me being one of them. Contrary to popular liberal thought, we not affiliated with any political or social group. Rather, the “Tea Party” is more a state of mind.

    We here in America we’re looking at a long term deficit problem primarily due to entitlements (and the Tea Party realizes something must be done about Medicare and Social Security which will be painful for some). Our deficit is currently out of control because we have decreased tax revenues caused by the recession and a week economy, accompanied with increased government spending - with the stimulus leading the list. And the Democrat’s new regulations are scaring the hell out of businesses. How is this the “Tea Party’s’” fault? We (plural) may be against the methods the current administration are utilizing to address the situation, but we didn't cause them.

    Democrats might have inherited the recession from GW Bush, but they now own the deficit, runaway spending, and a rotten economy with little-to-no sign of recovery in the near future. They had control of the Presidency, the Senate, and the House in 2009 and 2010. What did they do right the economy when the could have gotten pretty much of anything they wanted passed? A stimulus enacted to keep unemployment under 8% which was mostly a payback to their union supporters, Cap and Trade, student loan federalization, health care mandates, and a whopping amount of federal regulations which has businesses running scared and reluctant to invest… no wonder they aren’t hiring. They fiddled with their liberal checklist while Rome burned. How is this the “Tea Party’s’” fault? We might be against these policies, but we didn't cause them.

    We’re not stupid. We know the Democrats and Liberal Left are in desperate need of a bogeyman. We know if Obama loses the election next year, the Democrats will most probably also lose the Senate. We know the Democratic party (and the liberals who currently control it) are using the “Tea Party” to distract the public from their own terrible shortcomings and record. It's apparent the Democrats and Liberal Left also knows this... why don’t you?

    (and by the way... it was GW Bush's hand in the initial stimulus at the end of his term that spawned the "Tea Party")


Advertisement