Michele Bachmann and End Times Foreign Policy

[Argus]

Again, this is meaningless. Rep. Bachmann is a "right wing conservative" and "evangelical", terms that are well defined on the continuum of American politics. There is no such thing as "western democtatic standards".

Yes, but neither is mainstream. And 'right wing conservative' has a broad spectrum to it. There is 'right wing' as in John McCain, and there is right wing as in the American Nazi Party.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, but neither is mainstream. And 'right wing conservative' has a broad spectrum to it. There is 'right wing' as in John McCain, and there is right wing as in the American Nazi Party.

It is clear that you do not understand the concept of "political spectrum" as it applies to the U.S., but that's OK, you're in Canada. The Tea Party caucus in the Republican Party once numbered over 60 members.

[Smallc]

It is clear that you do not understand the concept of "political spectrum" as it applies to the U.S., but that's OK, you're in Canada. The Tea Party caucus in the Republican Party once numbered over 60 members.

This is funny from a guy who claims to understand Canadians.

[bush_cheney2004]

Probably been to her speeches, jumping up and down and whistling and applauding with wide adoring eyes too...

Wrong again...I just got to see all her campaign media every two years since I live in that market, including local news pieces and the attack media from her many losing opponents.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is funny from a guy who claims to understand Canadians.

I never claimed to understand Canadians, just their obsession with America. This is off topic !

[GostHacked]

It is a Canadian forum, is it not ? Makes sense to reference Canada just as much as the U.S. is referenced in the other forum areas here.

Hey moderators.... this is what is classified as a troll.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is why Rep. Bachmann matters...in ways that perhaps some here will never be able to understand just by watching American media:

The unhinged insanity of all of this is worth noting. But what we should also point out is that none of this disqualified her from consideration as a presidential candidate. Not only did Bachmann win the Iowa straw poll—a symbolic victory, but a victory nonetheless—but at one point, she led her competitors for the nomination. In a July survey from Public Policy Polling, 21 percent of Republican primary voters said she was their top choice for the nomination, compared to 20 percent for the eventual nominee, Mitt Romney, 12 percent for Rick Perry, and 11 percent for Herman Cain.

In other words, Bachmann may embarrass GOP elites, but actual Republicans don’t seem to have a huge problem with her or her antics. Indeed, if there’s a “Bachmann style” in conservative politics, it’s only grown more prominent since her moment in the spotlight. Texas Senator Ted Cruz is building his national brand by appealing to the same right-wing fever swamps. Conservatives describe him as a new “standard-bearer” for “constitutional conservatism”—a term popularized by Bachmann.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not sure you actually know what mainstream is any more. The majority of Americans don't even attend church any more. Of those who do, very few are of the evangelical strain like Bachman.

Very few Canadians are of the Evangelical strain like Harper. So what's your point?

Her constituents weren't voting for her religious beliefs, but for her political stands. It should be pointed out, too, that the quotes in the OP are from a Christian radio show, not the House floor.

Edited November 3, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Well it used to be the law of the land here as well. But we woke up. You won't get there with her.

FYI, the death penalty was abolished in Minnesota in 1911.

[dickwhitman]

Very few Canadians are of the Evangelical strain like Harper. So what's your point?

Her constituents weren't voting for her religious beliefs, but for her political stands. It should be pointed out, too, that the quotes in the OP are from a Christian radio show, not the House floor.

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... It does't have to deter voters from voting for her outright, but they should take it into account.

I'm sure they do, some choosing to vote for her because of her strongly held religious beliefs and "values".

Edited November 3, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

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.

I care more about what a politician will do for me politically than what their personal beliefs are - and I'm guessing the majority of the 179,000 people who voted for her were doing the same. It seems to me, too, that some of the Canadians here are saying that they don't care what their politicians beliefs are as long as they don't talk about them. Does that make sense to you?

[Argus]

I care more about what a politician will do for me politically than what their personal beliefs are - and I'm guessing the majority of the 179,000 people who voted for her were doing the same. It seems to me, too, that some of the Canadians here are saying that they don't care what their politicians beliefs are as long as they don't talk about them. Does that make sense to you?

And what do you think Bachmann was ever able to do for her constituents politically? Do you have a list of bills she passed? What positive influence did she have on the lives of her constituents?

Edited November 3, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

Very few Canadians are of the Evangelical strain like Harper. So what's your point?

Her constituents weren't voting for her religious beliefs, but for her political stands. It should be pointed out, too, that the quotes in the OP are from a Christian radio show, not the House floor.

Her political stands are those of a shrill, angry person full of hate for anyone who doesn't completely agree with her. She is the voice of utter intolerance, of total corporate freedom to do whatever they want, and no assistance whatsoever for the sick, the poor or the old. You're saying that lots of Americans think that political stance is great? That just gets back to my question about why so many Americans are so extreme.

[dickwhitman]

I care more about what a politician will do for me politically than what their personal beliefs are - and I'm guessing the majority of the 179,000 people who voted for her were doing the same. It seems to me, too, that some of the Canadians here are saying that they don't care what their politicians beliefs are as long as they don't talk about them. Does that make sense to you?

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.

Edited November 3, 2013 by dickwhitman

[waldo]

And what do you think Bachmann was ever able to do for her constituents politically? Do you have a list of bills she passed? What positive influence did she have on the lives of her constituents?

complete legislative history:

[bush_cheney2004]

And what do you think Bachmann was ever able to do for her constituents politically? Do you have a list of bills she passed? What positive influence did she have on the lives of her constituents?

You obviously don't understand how the federal money flows from Washington, D.C.:

During her 2012 re-election campaign, Bachmann plugged three main accomplishments during her time in the House: Securing a $750,000 grant for the regional airport in St. Cloud, advocating for a new veterans clinic in Ramsey and winning House passage of a bill authorizing a new bridge over the St. Croix River.

[Argus]

In other words, Bachmann may embarrass GOP elites, but actual Republicans don’t seem to have a huge problem with her or her antics. Indeed, if there’s a “Bachmann style” in conservative politics, it’s only grown more prominent since her moment in the spotlight. Texas Senator Ted Cruz is building his national brand by appealing to the same right-wing fever swamps. Conservatives describe him as a new “standard-bearer” for “constitutional conservatism”—a term popularized by Bachmann.

Okay, and if she had actually gotten the nomination and run for president, what percentage of the popular vote do you think she'd get? Even against such a lame and unpopular president as Obama? Heck, put her up against Clinton and what do you think would happen? I mean, this woman is neither smart nor knowledgeable nor sophisticated. There's so little to admire about her, why would anyone vote for her?

Can you see her with someone telling her Iran is acting up?

"GET ME THE NUKULAR CODES! PRAISE JESUS! iT'S THE END OF TIMES! I'M GOING TO YOU LORD!

She is not mainstream, not even close. Maybe all you're saying is that a lot of Republicans are far, far from the mainstream.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

I mean, this woman is neither smart nor knowledgeable nor sophisticated. There's so little to admire about her, why would anyone vote for her?

You persist in ignoring reality....Rep. Bachmann has been sent to Washington by her voting constituents several times. It doesn't matter what you think about her, her motives, or the choices made by her voting supporters. Go back and spend some time on more detailed America gazing to find out why her opponents kept losing in Minnesota's 6th Congressional District. Find out why your version of "mainstream" kept losing.

Edited November 4, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) won the Iowa straw poll for presidential candidates in August 2011, but dropped to barely 5 percent in the Iowa caucus vote in January 2012. According to the new book, Double Down, by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, she did not take the loss well:

God, I'm a loser, God, I turn people off.

[ReeferMadness]

Rep. Ellison says far more scary things like this:

“The bottom line is we’re not broke, there’s plenty of money, it’s just the government doesn’t have it,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.)

Equating a comment that implies increased taxation on the rich with one that encourages the use of foreign policy to bring about the rapture is batshit crazy in itself. Congrats, BC - you've made the grade!

[ReeferMadness]

You persist in ignoring reality....Rep. Bachmann has been sent to Washington by her voting constituents several times. It doesn't matter what you think about her, her motives, or the choices made by her voting supporters. Go back and spend some time on more detailed America gazing to find out why her opponents kept losing in Minnesota's 6th Congressional District. Find out why your version of "mainstream" kept losing.

Is it because the voters in the 6th Congressional District are as batshit crazy as she is? Or is it that, like most voters, they are so apathetic and disengaged that most of them have no idea what she's all about?

Is there a prize for the right guess?

[bush_cheney2004]

Equating a comment that implies increased taxation on the rich with one that encourages the use of foreign policy to bring about the rapture is batshit crazy in itself. Congrats, BC - you've made the grade!

Rep. Bachmann has no power to "bring about the rapture", but she and Ellison do have the power to confiscate earnings and wealth. Thank you for playing.

[ReeferMadness]

Rep. Bachmann has no power to "bring about the rapture", but she and Ellison do have the power to confiscate earnings and wealth. Thank you for playing.

First off I don't believe you. The lunatic fringe has always goaded presidents into shooting first and asking questions never. And often, they've succeeded.

But more to the point, you're abandoning your own statement. You said that Ellison's statement was crazier than Bachman's - in other words, it's crazier to increase taxes than deliberately try to bring about the apocalypse. Care to change your mind? Or are you just going to try to change the subject again?

[bush_cheney2004]

First off I don't believe you. The lunatic fringe has always goaded presidents into shooting first and asking questions never. And often, they've succeeded.

Well, just checking a little bit of world war history, it would seem that "batshit crazy" is/was not a requirement. God Save the Queen and all that jazz !

But more to the point, you're abandoning your own statement. You said that Ellison's statement was crazier than Bachman's - in other words, it's crazier to increase taxes than deliberately try to bring about the apocalypse. Care to change your mind? Or are you just going to try to change the subject again?

No....you are confused. Neither Bachmann or Ellison can "bring about the rapture", whatever that means in your mind. They both can vote to raise taxes, but Bachmann is far less likely to support a tax increase of any kind.

If it makes you feel any better, the "apocalypse" will be initiated by "mainstream" elected representatives and their confirmed appointees. They will use nuclear weapons developed from enriched, weapons grade uranium that originally came from.....wait for it...CANADA !!