• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michelle Bachmann could be our next president.

Call me crazy, but I prefer not to elect my politicians based on physical attractiveness (for the record, I don't think she's ugly, nor do I think she's stunning; she's more or less attractive enough though) or lack thereof. I would be perfectly happy electing a relatively unattractive person so long as I felt their politics were sound. Bachmann's are not. IIRC, the woman is something of a 9/11 Truther, and any politician who subscribes to that batcrap-insane theory is someone, IMO, strictly to be avoided.
 
MNBrant said:
She's not my pick for the republicans, I would probably go for Ron Paul given the choice. He's a genius.
Click to expand...
Paul read and understood a few libertarian books, no doubt. But he also believes in homeopathy and can't figure out which makes more sense between evolution and creationism...so I think the jury is still out on him.
 
EGarrett said:
Paul read and understood a few libertarian books, no doubt. But he also believes in homeopathy and can't figure out which makes more sense between evolution and creationism...so I think the jury is still out on him.
Click to expand...
In the 2008 Republican primary debates, Paul did not raise his hand when the field was asked if they do not believe evolution in accurate; I think about three of the ten or so candidates did raise their hand.

As for homeopathy, I can look past that as long as he doesn't do anyhting with it as far as the law is concerned. Frankly, if he had been a creationist I'd still support him if I could be convinced he wouldn't foist that upon the rest of us.

tl;dr: it's not what they believe, it's what they do that matters.
 
Sabrina said:
Call me crazy, but I prefer not to elect my politicians based on physical attractiveness .
Click to expand...

We all like to tell ourselves that, but I doubt it is completely true. Since the invention of television, appearance has been a factor in every presedential election, whether we intend it or not.

I think we are more honest about it when discussing women, but look at the relative attractiveness of the men who have been president both before and after television.

The major outlier since televised campaigning is Nixon. All others have been fairly attractive men.
 
cwalner said:
We all like to tell ourselves that, but I doubt it is completely true. Since the invention of television, appearance has been a factor in every presedential election, whether we intend it or not.

I think we are more honest about it when discussing women, but look at the relative attractiveness of the men who have been president both before and after television.

The major outlier since televised campaigning is Nixon. All others have been fairly attractive men.
Click to expand...

Which is why Chistie hasn't got a chance. Fat went out with Taft.
 
Ok, I admit it. This was kind of an ad hominem attack in a pervert kind of way. nobody caught on however. I find her amusing in an abstract kind of way but listening to her is painful. I remember during the tea party rebuttal to some the democratic convention. She was facing away from the camera because some tea partiers payed for a private feed. I am not behind her yet.
 
I seem paralyzed into inactivity in the political process as the world tips over and sinks into the abyss. I did get some email from some Obama pac saying "Are you in". I must say no. I am very bery bored.
 
EventHorizon said:
No way. Sarah Palin is a MILF. I'd do things to her that are illegal in half the states in the union. This woman? Nah.
Click to expand...

Yes, but would you vote for her?
She might be MILF but only if she doesn't say anything.:D
 
Last edited:
MNBrant said:
I seem paralyzed into inactivity in the political process as the world tips over and sinks into the abyss. I did get some email from some Obama pac saying "Are you in". I must say no. I am very bery bored.
Click to expand...

I did send an email letting then know that Indeed I am in even though I didn't send any money. Same as last year. I think I still got the obama sticker laying around somewhere and might put it on my car this time but I will wait and see I guess, the world might still end 2012. Has anybody seen how I very cleverly made this into an ad hominem attack yet? I will say that I did get a hit describing bachmann as a favorite of the evangelicals as the papers described her as in her element talking to evangelicals in iowa.
 
I'm wondering what the limit is on religiosity from a politician before it starts to take a significant negative toll on his or her candidacy. I have in mind Bachmann's leading a prayer while speaking to the Faith and Freedom Conference yesterday. It led another religious nut candidate, Herman Cain, to criticize her for pandering. I assume that this particular audience probably isn't put off, but what about the larger population of voters who might otherwise vote for a Republican candidate?

Do they start to run away when they perceive politicians are doubling as clergy, and leading prayer?

Watch it here:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom