Should Bachmann drop out?

Everything that comes out of that woman's mouth screams of a moral superiority that gives the supposition that no one in this country could possibly not agree that she is the most true and moral authority in the country. *eyeroll*

When asked what should be done, by high school students, about equal rights, she said EVERYONE has a right to get married, so long as they want to marry the opposite sex.

She aimed to force Christian prayers in school.

She believes that homosexuality is an illness that can be treated and corrected.

And she can't even pronounce the word, "Poignant."

(among my very LONG list of problems with this woman)

I've never been so proud to be in Iowa as the day that only 5% of the state caucused for her and forced her out of the running.

So yes, subtlety aside, I'm beyond ecstatic that this moron has dropped out of the race. less

Amen, sister. And she never ever answers a question directly. She starts any answer to a question that questions her own actions or words with, "Yeah? Well, Obama did...." and then some ignorant misunderstanding or something nearly 98% made up. When she's on Meet the Press I sit in the chair in my bedroom and scream obscenities at her. "Answer the question, %#@*!" less

Exactly. I even stopped watching/listening to anything she had to say. It just hurt my brain cells.

As it is, Romney and Santorum have the lead in the caucus. I'm interested in seeing what New Hampshire says.

Frankly, I wish that there was a way to have had a successful boycott of the caucuses nationwide and demanded that the GOP offer us candidates worth listening to. There are so many bright, intelligent, interesting people in the world (even in the conservative world). THIS is the cream of their crop? LORD HELP US!

My generation is falling, hard, into the same pattern that we've been in for decades in this ridiculous bipartisan game: Vote for the lesser of the two evils. (Or two stupids, as I see it, because frankly I'm fairly upset that Obama signed the NADD. He can promise that his administration won't detain without due process, but what about the next administration? Or the one after that?... I digress) We were never meant to be run by career politicians and we need to end this cycle. I don't know how, frankly, the money required to run means that this process won't end anytime soon, and it scares the hell out of me. less

Me, too. (Scares me, I mean.)

I'm beginning to think that term limits are the only way we can get any decent people into office. That way, they won't be afraid to say and do what they think is right, instead of worrying about "offending" people who will fund their next campaign. less

So both (or all) parties would have to put up a new candidate every term? That's one way.

I'd like to see a cap put on the amount of money that can be raised and spent on campaign advertising. I'd like to see money raised solely for the sake of traveling for press conferences, caucuses, town hall meetings, debates, etc. I'd like for them to do away with solicitous calling, negative campaigning strategies, etc. I'd actually would like it if there were no media campaigns whatsoever. The only way people could form opinions is to go and listen to the candidates themselves either in person or in interviews (or via any print media with clout). I think it should be unlawful for any candidate to take money from a corporation of any kind. They should raise their money by gaining support by the people and they can't use any of their own money at all.

I'd also like to see all candidates have a lower-middle class lifestyle, and if they DON'T have a lower-middle class lifestyle, they should be forced to live that way for 6 months before their bid can be taken for president. I don't want any more presidents who don't know what it's like to live in a one-income family that lives paycheck to paycheck, and doesn't understand how hard it is to make ends meet.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of the "99%" who feels like we're being robbed of all our liberties. I believe in putting back what you take out. If you need assistance paying for higher education, only take what you need for tuition, housing (if you're living on school property), and books. You should work for your food. You should work to pay for luxuries. If you look at the rest of the world, we sound like spoiled brats, "Wah, I got an education and over-borrowed my loans and now I can't pay for my internet or go out to eat." There are people who don't have food, clean water, or even the ability to be educated to read. (I'm not saying that some of the "Occupy" points aren't valid, I'm all for affordable/free healthcare, but let's be realistic, much of it falls under the category of: first world problems.)

But the truth is, we live in a privileged society where money determines everything. Maybe our politicians would stop supporting big-business if they realized how incredibly expensive putting a healthy meal on the table for a family of four actually is, especially for someone whose family only brings home $1600/month.


Sigh. I'm done ranting. less

I agree with a lot of this. I do understand a lot of the 99% Movement. I agree that candidates (and CEOs etc) should have to live on, say, $50,000 or less for a few years and see how they "relate" to the rest of us then. Most are completely misunderstanding on what it means to really only have enough to pay for exactly what you already have. (If that makes sense.) "I'll bet you $10,000.00...." I yelled "Fuck you, rich asshole!" I wish I had ten grand to bet with and throw around, not that I'd do it. But, people who think that's chump change need to have their priorities changed, by any means necessary, perhaps.

I also agree that there should be severe limits on what can be spent on campaigns. Basically, it's "he who raises or has the most money wins." I don't think that's what this system was set up to do. (Although our "forefathers" were mostly rich white guys, too.) Set the Presidential campaign at say, 2 Mil, and when it's gone, you're done. Even less for Congress etc. Everybody gets to use the same amount and then that's it.

And no more freakin' SuperPacs. Jeez what a way around the rules. less

So both (or all) parties would have to put up a new candidate every term? That's one way.

I'd like to see a cap put on the amount of money that can be raised and spent on campaign advertising. I'd like to see money raised solely for the sake of traveling for press conferences, caucuses, town hall meetings, debates, etc. I'd like for them to do away with solicitous calling, negative campaigning strategies, etc. I'd actually would like it if there were no media campaigns whatsoever. The only way people could form opinions is to go and listen to the candidates themselves either in person or in interviews (or via any print media with clout). I think it should be unlawful for any candidate to take money from a corporation of any kind. They should raise their money by gaining support by the people and they can't use any of their own money at all.

I'd also like to see all candidates have a lower-middle class lifestyle, and if they DON'T have a lower-middle class lifestyle, they should be forced to live that way for 6 months before their bid can be taken for president. I don't want any more presidents who don't know what it's like to live in a one-income family that lives paycheck to paycheck, and doesn't understand how hard it is to make ends meet.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of the "99%" who feels like we're being robbed of all our liberties. I believe in putting back what you take out. If you need assistance paying for higher education, only take what you need for tuition, housing (if you're living on school property), and books. You should work for your food. You should work to pay for luxuries. If you look at the rest of the world, we sound like spoiled brats, "Wah, I got an education and over-borrowed my loans and now I can't pay for my internet or go out to eat." There are people who don't have food, clean water, or even the ability to be educated to read. (I'm not saying that some of the "Occupy" points aren't valid, I'm all for affordable/free healthcare, but let's be realistic, much of it falls under the category of: first world problems.)

But the truth is, we live in a privileged society where money determines everything. Maybe our politicians would stop supporting big-business if they realized how incredibly expensive putting a healthy meal on the table for a family of four actually is, especially for someone whose family only brings home $1600/month.


Sigh. I'm done ranting. less

I disagree with a few of these points, if you don't mind me engaging in a friendly debate.

1. "I'd like to see a cap put on the amount of money that can be raised and spent on campaign advertising."

campaign advertising helps the incumbents more than the challenger. When an incumbent runs for re-election s/he has name recognition of around 80-100%. The money that person spends will do comparatively little, compared to a little known challenger. Many incumbents advocate for campaign finance reform because it helps to weaken challengers.

2. "I'd like for them to do away with solicitous calling, negative campaigning strategies, etc."

One, there's the free speech issue, if the government can limit how negative a candidate can advertise, they may start limiting a lot more about campaign advertising. Two, these strategies are used because they work. It's bad that politicians utilize them, but the public is at least part to blame for allowing it to happen. it's like steroids, the players are wrong for using them, but the team owners and fans are wrong for putting up with it.

3. "I'd actually would like it if there were no media campaigns whatsoever." research has shown that the more media coverage there is, the more informed the electorate. few people actively search out information about candidates, mainly just the elites, so limiting the media, aside for the aforementioned free speech issues, would result in a dumber electorate.

4. "They should raise their money by gaining support by the people and they can't use any of their own money at all." again, this goes back to incumbent protection. incumbents are the best able to raise money, so this would limit challengers,protecting the status quo. Further, the research on how useful money is in an election is mixed,its not the end all of an election. many challengers have to lay down seed money, sometimes just a few thousand of their own dollars to show they're actually able to compete. if personal contributions are criminalized, this will hurt challengers more than incumbents. There's also the theory that a self funded candidate will be attune to the people, as they cannot be purchased by interest groups, but I don't know if this holds out in reality. less