dickwhitman

REMOVED

REMOVED

REMOVED

REMOVED

REMOVED

REMOVED

I'd have to say yes and no. If her beliefs are benign, like most Christians' beliefs are, then no I could care less and I'm sure those are the kinds of beliefs the Canadians don't mind. If she ruminates on daft Christian eschatological claims and believes that our foreign policy is playing some part in bringing these claims to fruition, then they do matter to me; I'm sure the Canadians would care if Mr. Harper or some MP started saying things like she does. I could care less if she goes to church every Sunday, prays to Jesus, and the various things that most mainstream Christians do and discuss publicly. However, her religious views go farther than that. If someone believes Christ will soon return, that some apocalyptic conflict will come with his return, and they're happy for it, then that is inseparable from politics. Like I said it doesn't have to outright deter her constituents from voting for her, but it isn't a topic that's off limits when it comes to discussion. In other words, if there were two Michele Bachmanns running for reelection on the same platform, except one of them believed in the end times business and the other one didn't, then voters like myself would be inclined to vote for the one that didn't believe in the end times business.

I trust that most Bachmann supporters don't agree with her religious fanaticism. With that said, we do elect people to the legislature rather than actually voting on policy for ourselves in referenda, therefore it does matter who we send to Washington. That is to say, her religious beliefs are pertinent when assessing whether or not one wishes to cast a ballot for her. It does't have to deter voters from voting for her outright, but they should take it into account.

REMOVED

I was unwisely optimistic about our conversation initially, and tried to find points we could agree on in the hope that his posts were sincere. I gave up after the first few "circles of what-might-be-called-thought" I followed him around. That is to say I have him on my ignore list now.

I agree with your first point, and I have said it myself in this thread despite the fact that someone is intent on ignoring it (the man with the surname of a former president and vice president in his username that is). I also agree with your second point. I'd prefer Mrs. Bachmann and those like her keep their madness in the open. If any of them are too off the rails for my taste, then I take it into account either at the polls or when passing value judgments on them (because I'm just that high and mighty). It has been my aim to extract a condemnation for her 9/11 statements, and at least a nod of disapproval for her comments on Obama's foreign policy (whatever one thinks of said policy). I don't think that's too much to ask for. I think I agree, at least in part, on your third point as well. She doesn't sound crazy in the linked article. However, I must point out that no one was taking umbrage because of her stance on the ACA (I'll also say that I'm inclined to agree with her statements made in the article). The thread is about her religious views, and how they're obviously "disagreeable" to put it mildly. She shouldn't get brownie points for occasionally speaking sense. Also in my defense, that isn't my comment you're quoting, and I don't think I ever condoned it either.

Because she's a nutbag. That's the view of the people who started this thread. Every time you're told this you seem to forget shortly thereafter. With that in mind, as well as my most generous contribution to the effort of holding your hand and walking you through the "why" of it all, I think my time in this thread is done.

No one said they didn't.

When have politicians ever been exempt from criticism?

No one here is questioning anyone's rights. Someone started this thread so that people could talk about why they don't like Michele Bachmann.

No one cares about her constituents, people are interested in attacking her here for their own pleasure for hopefully obvious reasons.

You don't have to agree with me, but if you wish to understand why people (be they American or Canadian) don't like her then you really ought to read what people have been saying on this forum. I don't agree with Mrs. Bachmann, but I understand why she believes the nonsense that she does.

Pretty much all of them except for the first couple in this thread have the answer to your questions. You seem to be more interested in convincing Canadians to not to care about the US more than you seem to be interested in the reasons why Canadians are interested in the US. Every time they've given a reason as to why they're interested in the US, you've dismissed it for some reason (as if it weren't the real reason they're interested in the US) and every time I've given you an answer as to why Mrs. Bachmann ought to be recognized by everyone as a bag of nuts, you've said it doesn't affect her politics even though the article in the very first post makes it clear that it does. And I trust that you've at least read the article in the OP.

I'm sorry that you've ignored my previous posts.

She's made it clear that her religious views are pertinent to her views on foreign policy. Also how are we supposed to stop trading with each other? "Economic integration", as far as I know, is really just a silly word for governments keeping out of my damn business if I want to sell something to some Canadians, or if things are the other way around. Also, why wouldn't they want to buddy up with militarily the country which makes most sense to buddy up with? Bachmann is just a drop in the bucket that is US politics, but it's reasonable for them to be concerned with the possibility of more metaphorical Bachmann drops entering the metaphorical bucket. Furthermore, I don't buy that 10000+ posts doesn't signify an interest in Canada.

Well that's fine too. Either way, the US matters in the world of foreign affairs and Canadians recognize this. This thread was originally about Mrs. Bachmann's views on the policy of Mr. Obama with respect to al-Qaeda (i.e., Mrs. Bachmann's views on some aspect of US foreign policy). Now Canadian's ought to be interested in the anti-terror policies of the US (the west's only military superpower) or anyone looking to influence them, as Mrs. Bachmann seems to want to do. Come to think of it, if you're interested in what Canadians think of you or your country, why doesn't that make you interested in Canadians and their country? Furthermore, I don't think most Americans don't care about the politics of their own country.

Well look at it this way, they're not wrong in recognizing that it matters who is in the government of the most important country in the world. (Not to sound like too much of a chauvinist.) Aren't you on here to because of your interest in the internal politics of a much less important country? (Again, not to sound too chauvinistic; I quite admire Canada.)

Well I'm sorry to say I'm not as uninterested as you are in the personal lives or characteristics of politicians. Doing so, I think, would've saved our country some trouble in the 90s under Mr. Clinton. In his case it wasn't a question of intelligence, but rather one of moral character. The same could be said of other countries and their heads of state (e.g., Russia and Putin, France and Chirac). I'd delve into that, but we're here to discuss Mrs. Bachmann.

We're obviously talking about two different things. I'm not questioning her success within her district. I'm questioning the soundness of her mind (rude as it might be to do so). You don't have to be smart to be a successful politician. Perhaps I'm being presumptuous of your politics, but surely you'd agree with the assertion that Joe Biden isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, regardless of how successful he is? The same is true (although I'd argue much more so) of Mrs. Bachmann.

You're giving her much more credit than she deserves, and if it isn't obvious why she doesn't deserve it then I don't know what to tell you. This is a matter of calling a spade a spade.