LIVE! Michele Bachmann news conference (campaign suspended - she's out!)

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by samcrow

 

No one, even the democrats know everything that is in obamacare. Do you?
If it's so why do they (the left) support "corporatist dung"?

Obamacare mutates to serve the greedy when needed.

Do you think it's ok for government to force us to buy a product? I agree with Michelle Bachmann when it comes to obamacare.

Is mandating us to buy a product not socialistic?

Uhm, what is a "true democrat" ?

edit on 4-1-2012 by sweetliberty because: (no reason given)

Despite any perceived or realized shortcomings in my understanding of the bill, it's fairly obvious that I have a far better grasp on it than you do.

While the democrats in Congress may have supported Obamacare, it is wildly unpopular among Democrats and left-leaning moderate people. The only real reasons it hasn't seen a repeal effort from the left is because it would be seen as a Tea Party 'victory' and there are some small parts of the legislation that are helpful, such as the changes in lifetime maximums and the small business tax credits that will come available. However, this is not the bill Democrats wanted in any way, shape, or form. Very little was done in the way of tort reform, cost and pricing controls, and regulation against blatant profiteering at the insurance and hospital levels. All of this was left out precisely because of the influence on the industry lobbyists on the process. It is a token bill that is championed as 'reform' but is little more than some basic regulatory changes. Via rhetoric it is a leftist victory and has to be sold as such because so much political capital was squandered by its passage. In substance, however, it is probably what we would've seen had a non-Tea Party influenced Republican congress drafted it.

As far as your patently incorrect understanding of 'socialism,' one of the basic tenets of that political system and perhaps the defining part of it is that the means of production are 'socially' or publicly owned. If the government was the insurer and owned all the hospitals and prohibited private ownership of either or both and then mandated participation you'd have a much stronger case, although some arguments could be made about implementation, etc. As it stands, you have government mandating one of two things: purchase of a product from a privately held, privately run industry OR the payment of a penalty. Compulsory product purchase at this level is actually much closer to fascism (but still not quite there) than it is socialism, with the two, of course, occupying opposite ends of the political ideology spectrum.

reply to post by detachedindividual

She's a religious extremist because she intended to mix her religious convictions with her political power, enforcing her religious beliefs onto others.

She also stresses she is not a politician and never will be. I don't see where she would've enforced her religious beliefs onto others.
Imo, forcing tax payers to fund abortions is over the top and forceful.

She would have defunded Planned Parenthood, is that considered extreme to you?

Her husband runs a truly messed up "Gay Cure" clinic. Despite the fact that he is one of the campest men I think I have ever seen! Denial much?

Lol, well, we can say with relief, at least that agenda isn't hidden with the other future surprises in obamacare

My opinion stands, she is no better than the Taliban forcing their doctrine on women, the Zionists attacking the Palestinians, the Christians spreading AIDS through Africa through their ignorance...

I don't believe she calls for the death of any person who disagree's with her religion. As for AIDS in Africa, of course I don't deny the existence of AIDS in Africa but I do believe the people of Africa are also being used as a tool for gaining far more funds through fear mongering and deceit. As a matter of fact, I laughed at the gall of the left promoting a need to teach the men how to clean their genitals. The millions of dollars that was needed for this delicate procedure that did nothing to assist in the prevention of AIDS although it was pushed as such.

Religious nut bags listening to the little voices in their heads DO NOT belong in government, no matter what the religion.

This freaks me out too!... so does a few more things that have recently passed in the name of safety.

You bring up good points and I understand how you feel because although I could care less about sexual preferences, it has been pushed into the faces of people who could also care less about it. When it began to be pushed into our schools, I began to feel, as a parent, it was intrusive and undermining parents.
All I can say is that both sides are pushing too far. Are too intrusive.

Fair thee well skeletor, err i mean Michelle.

I wish some of these yahoos would just not run to begin with. They take attention away from more serious candidates.

reply to post by samcrow

While the democrats in Congress may have supported Obamacare, it is wildly unpopular among Democrats and left-leaning moderate people. The only real reasons it hasn't seen a repeal effort from the left is because it would be seen as a Tea Party 'victory' and there are some small parts of the legislation that are helpful, such as the changes in lifetime maximums and the small business tax credits that will come available.

Samcrow, please tell me you are not protecting and even excusing "democrats" and "left-leaning moderate" people who would rather be cowards and enslaved to something they don't support for the sake of making sure a group doesn't get any glory! Are you telling me democrats and left-leaning have no core convictions? Is that the "true" democrats you spoke of earlier?

Any product that has competition will be affordable because competition brings the cost of products down (or the business closes).
I'm not saying we had it all figured out as far as insurance goes but it's a far better cry than what obamacare offers.
Do you agree that education should be a part of obamacare, the EPA?

While there might be a few good idea's in obamacare, I still wholeheartedly agree with Michelle Bachmann about this.

reply to post by sweetliberty


ObamaCare will be found to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court later this year.

Thank God.

If people want the Public Option move to Canada. It won't work down here.

----------
Huntsman should be the next to drop out.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by sweetliberty

 

ObamaCare will be found to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court later this year.

Thank God.

If people want the Public Option move to Canada. It won't work down here.

----------
Huntsman should be the next to drop out.

I thank God for that too

While I didn't follow Michelle Bachmann, I do believe she has it right...... Obama will be a one term President!

Oh well now huntsman will get a few extra votes

I was showing someone competing candidate videos so we would not be watching only ron paul, and I said looks like I found a bachmann video, and it has zero views, so careful we might give her some false hope.

I don't think anyone is really surprised she did so poorly but I am kind of surprised she quit so soon, I always thought of her as Palin 2.0 so it isn't much of a surpise really.

I wonder if her voters will switch to Santorum. They have a lot of similar ideas in some respects, and seem to have the strongest appeal with evangelicals. That won't help him a bit in New Hampshire, but I do wonder about Georgia.

Originally posted by sweetlibertySamcrow, please tell me you are not protecting and even excusing "democrats" and "left-leaning moderate" people who would rather be cowards and enslaved to something they don't support for the sake of making sure a group doesn't get any glory! Are you telling me democrats and left-leaning have no core convictions? Is that the "true" democrats you spoke of earlier?

It's an issue of holding on to one's elected position at this point. There are a few things going on here. First is that this became a very partisan, very toxic issue for both parties due to the (generally inaccurate) rhetoric at the time. There had to be a solid front against the right and specifically the Tea Party on this or nothing would've been passed, they would have appeared as abject failures (the case can be made that they've since proven themselves as such quite well) at the hands of a group (Tea Party) that anyone left of center-right regards as extremist. Secondly, this is the one thing that, despite it's unpopularity and problems, is somewhat of a 'victory' for the left. How that will actually play out for the voters remains to be seen, but the idea from DC Dems right now is that it's the only substantive thing they've been able to do. As I said, however, most left-leaning people are unhappy with it because it didn't do what was promised on the campaign trail, and considering that it was a major part of Obama's election campaign, I think a lot of the backlash against Obama from the left is related directly to his failure to get the right bill through on health care that is further compounded by his inability to do anything else at any time ever.

Any product that has competition will be affordable because competition brings the cost of products down (or the business closes).

Except that healthcare is a necessity, not luxury. Do you price out MRI's from various hospitals if you get sick? While waiting for an appendectomy do you ask for an itemized list of supplies and prices? Not usually. Therefore, 'free market' principles don't really apply. The industry charges whatever it wants, whenever it wants precisely because of this. It's like this: Say you had $100. You're starving, and you only have enough strength left to make it to one restaurant. At that point does it make any difference if they charge you $100 for a hamburger? No. You'll pay it. You have to. This is one of the biggest fallacies out there right now related to the health care industry. They've convinced capitalist people that their closed-market, necessity-driven monopoly is a 'free' market.

While there might be a few good idea's in obamacare, I still wholeheartedly agree with Michelle Bachmann about this.

That's your right to do so. However, don't call it socialism when it's not. Every time I hear that moron Bachmann open her yap and say 'socialism' I want to eject myself from the planet.

Originally posted by Byrd
I wonder if her voters will switch to Santorum. They have a lot of similar ideas in some respects, and seem to have the strongest appeal with evangelicals. That won't help him a bit in New Hampshire, but I do wonder about Georgia.

Her voters will switch to a - small government - Santorum.

---------
It will be interesting to see what the Mitt Romney SuperPac will throw at Rick Santorum.

Newt was blown to bits. They actually made Old Newt Garbage bounce!

I was hoping Bachmann would get nominated and then creamed in the election.

Sigh.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I was hoping Bachmann would get nominated and then creamed in the election.

Sigh.

Michelle Bachmann failed to answer the most important question and never recovered.

-- If i earned $1.00 under a Bachmann Administration, how much of that dollar do i get to keep?--

--------
Her answer: I want you to keep the whole dollar but we have to pay our bills.

Originally posted by Byrd
I wonder if her voters will switch to Santorum. They have a lot of similar ideas in some respects, and seem to have the strongest appeal with evangelicals. That won't help him a bit in New Hampshire, but I do wonder about Georgia.

5% isnt exactly a huge number, but those voters will probably go to either Romney or Paul. I honestly dont believe Santorum is polling as high as Iowa would suggest. The man was polling at 2% nation wide a week ago and if anything he's nothing more than flavor of the week. Santorum also has absolutely nothing to offer Christian voters. Once they see his stance as a warmonger they'll run in the other direction. The only bible man in the race is Perry and he's a complete fraud. Still, I honestly dont believe that people should be voting for someone based on their religous views.

It's all going according to plan, she's out, then santorum we can then see the fight between romney and paul..... romney obviously wins because of the system and obama gets his 2nd term...... You heard it here first!

reply to post by Eurisko2012


There are only really two options left to Bachmann and Perry supporters: Throw in behind Santorum or don't vote. Newt will get a slight, temporary bump from this, but everybody knows his days are numbered, which is why he was so complementary towards Santorum in his speech last night.

The far right, which has become the voice for the party as a whole these days, HATES Mitt Romney. They can't STAND that guy. Keep in mind that he has had a presence in Iowa basically since last election and he is still unable to get above the numbers he had last time around, and this time he's running against what is arguably the worst Republican presidential field ever. When you look at the numbers from last night, you have almost 60% of the party that wants anybody BUT him (you can make the case that Newt, Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry are basically the same candidate on a lot of things as well)....he's running neck in neck with Ron Paul at ~20%. Ron Paul. A guy that the establishment has ALWAYS hated and would self destruct before they'd give him the nomination. That is Romney's competitor.

It's going to be interesting, especially if Santorum makes a good run in New Hampshire. Romney isn't going to go over well in the Baptist, conservative south. He's a yankee Mormon moderate who can't speak to blue collar people at their level and who implemented left-leaning policies.

Santorum, if this continues, will get the nod and then will get absolutely CRUSHED in the general because he has no ability to appeal to where the elections are won and lost - the center -, with the right vote getting split between him and a third party/write in push.

Originally posted by samcrow
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

There are only really two options left to Bachmann and Perry supporters: Throw in behind Santorum or don't vote. Newt will get a slight, temporary bump from this, but everybody knows his days are numbered, which is why he was so complementary towards Santorum in his speech last night.

The far right, which has become the voice for the party as a whole these days, HATES Mitt Romney. They can't STAND that guy. Keep in mind that he has had a presence in Iowa basically since last election and he is still unable to get above the numbers he had last time around, and this time he's running against what is arguably the worst Republican presidential field ever. When you look at the numbers from last night, you have almost 60% of the party that wants anybody BUT him (you can make the case that Newt, Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry are basically the same candidate on a lot of things as well)....he's running neck in neck with Ron Paul at ~20%. Ron Paul. A guy that the establishment has ALWAYS hated and would self destruct before they'd give him the nomination. That is Romney's competitor.

It's going to be interesting, especially if Santorum makes a good run in New Hampshire. Romney isn't going to go over well in the Baptist, conservative south. He's a yankee Mormon moderate who can't speak to blue collar people at their level and who implemented left-leaning policies.

Santorum, if this continues, will get the nod and then will get absolutely CRUSHED in the general because he has no ability to appeal to where the elections are won and lost - the center -, with the right vote getting split between him and a third party/write in push.

Everything will change when the unemployment rate jumps back above 9%.

Christmas is over. The temp retail jobs will disappear.
Also, Hillary fans will begin to float the truth.

-- According to government statistics, if the same number of people were working today
that were working in 2007 the unemployment rate would be 11%. --

The only reason the unemployment rate is so low is because millions of Americans have
simply given up and dropped out of the work force.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012Everything will change when the unemployment rate jumps back above 9%.

Christmas is over. The temp retail jobs will disappear.
Also, Hillary fans will begin to float the truth.

-- According to government statistics, if the same number of people were working today
that were working in 2007 the unemployment rate would be 11%. --

The only reason the unemployment rate is so low is because millions of Americans have
simply given up and dropped out of the work force.

Real unemployment in a lot of areas is 14%-18%, and the vast majority of blue collar people already know that and don't need the governments statistics to tell them that it's pretty bad out there right now.

That said, people like Santorum don't offer anything substantive and believable for job creation. On top of that, he's an anti-personal freedom, imperialist hawk. No moderate will ever vote for him, regardless of how bad things are economically. Romney, maybe. Santorum, never. Those center votes will either jump third party or reluctantly vote for Obama. The GOP had this election basically in the bag. The left handed it to them on a platter and they fielded a bunch of ignorant bigots and a rich pretty-boy corporate raider.

In terms of the primary, Romney will never be a sell to the south or to much of the midwest. Look at how the rural votes broke for Santorum last night. That's how most of the south and middle-American states are going to go as well. Romney has too many 'deal breakers' to be viable to them, even if he had the world's best economic recovery plan (he doesn't).

reply to post by samcrow


Keep watching for Hillary.

Obama is toast. Hillary however, is polling much better.

She is even beating Mitt Romney. Hmmmm.........

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by samcrow

 

Keep watching for Hillary.

Obama is toast. Hillary however, is polling much better.

She is even beating Mitt Romney. Hmmmm.........

I've lost faith in Obama's capacity to lead. Maybe Hillary has bigger b@lls.

It's said that ultimately we'll have to vote for the least of evils, not for the great leader of some sort.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by samcrow

 

Keep watching for Hillary.

Obama is toast. Hillary however, is polling much better.

She is even beating Mitt Romney. Hmmmm.........

You think she'll run? I don't.

Well, it's too late for her to throw in now unless she goes third party or unless there's a REALLY big shake-up in the Democratic primary circle. It would've happened already if it were going to happen. She's either an ace-in-the-hole VP nominee or she's really bowing out and will bide her time until 2016.