Posts tagged Michele Bachmann
Posts tagged Michele Bachmann
Michele Bachmann claimed ACLU controls interrogation of terrorists again. The ACLU would like to have a word with you, Michele.
ACLU: 2, Bachmann: 0
So here’s my tweets from the debate in Storify form.
Let me be clear, we saw candidates support abolishing federal courts when they disagree with them, deny the judiciary can interpret/impose law, support a federal personhood amendment, condemn theocracy in Iran, etc…
To answer an anon, nope, still can’t figure out an adequate summary of this debacle.
You suggested it. I created it. I give you the bingo board for a spectacular drinking game involving the GOP debate/discussion hosted by The Family Leader, Iowa’s premier anti-gay and anti-choice group. It’s this Saturday from 4-6 p.m. CST and will be live-streamed here. I’ll be live-tweeting it. Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul are all confirmed to attend. Mitt Romney was invited, and Jon Huntsman was snubbed.
Should be a good time… and seriously, I’m pretty sure this can be reused after the 19th.
Hey Michele! The ACLU heard your claim that they’re running the CIA.
American Civil Liberties Union, 1; Michele Bachmann, 0.
Three thoughts off the bat:
Herman Cain was lost because he couldn’t use 9-9-9. For real. He said he disagrees with torture but would let “the people on the ground” decide what torture is and isn’t. His biggest blunder was declaring that we still don’t know if Pakistan is “friend or foe” and that the U.S. should cut off military aid to Pakistan. Cain said if he were in charge, the mission and goals of victory would be clear for Afghanistan. Moderators punted by not asking him what those thresholds would be and how would they be determined. Regarding Pakistan: Where did we find Bin Laden again, and we have cut off aid. Obama did that.
Newt Gingrich was a patronizing asshole. He said the Arab Spring is in danger of turning Anti-Christian and if that happens, we should intervene. Gingrich made a bizarre point about following the “Reagan/Thatcher/John Paul II plan” against Iran. WTF? He attacked moderators for not knowing the rule of law regarding presidential authority with assassination and endorsed a “review panel” with the power to direct assassinations of anyone who is “against the United States.” That’s right, a death panel. He summed it up with “You kill people who are trying to kill you.” He also said we don’t currently have a reliable intelligence force. Like the one that found Osama Bin Laden, amirite?! </sarcasm>
Michele Bachmann seemed to rail in the batshit for just a few seconds when talking about foreign aid. She said eliminating all foreign aid is simplistic and wouldn’t work. And then…. we got to nukes. Bachmann claimed that Obama supports Occupy Wall Street, but not Israel, and that places Israel in danger of “World Wide Nuclear War” with everyone but us. She forgets that Obama HAS increased aid to Israel and has gone so far as to approve secret arms sales to Israel that were denied by the Bush administration. But facts are hard. Bachmann wants to reform TriCare (military’s health care program) by “modernization” - essentially, privatization. Oh, and she endorsed torture as well and said the CIA is being run by the ACLU. Finally, she praised China for not having food stamps or AFDC and that the US should be more like China. Even though she spent the last debate fear-mongering about China.
Mitt Romney endorsed torture and assassinating American citizens. He didn’t seem to see any controversy associated with it. Also, he endorsed cooperation with the Arab world while simultaneously endorsing torturing its people and reducing foreign aid. Romney suggested getting into a trade war with China, not spending money to intervene in foreign affairs unless we spend money to help Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and said we must link public sector pay to the rates of private sector pay. So university professors at public universities should make as much as those at private ones? How about soldiers making as much as Xe/Blackwater missionaries? Romney echoed bits of what others said and didn’t really seem to have any clear policy ideas other than “repeal Obamacare.” One minute, he wanted to be diplomatic with other countries. The next, he’s okay steamrolling in with tanks. The best part was watching Romney as Perry fumbled through answers. A picture says a thousands words:
Rick Perry made a few cracks about his massive brain implosion last debate. That was about as good as his performance ever got. Perry wants to start all foreign aid at zero, which would include Israel, then quickly added that Israel would “obviously” get a boost in foreign aid later on in the debate. He was completely incapable of answering a question when it was asked, always choosing to address the previous question and irritating moderators who asked him to answer the question. Perry generated more word salad than a filibuster by Sarah Palin. He went back and forth on endorsing torture. Then we got to the assassination of American citizens. Perry chided Ron Paul for objecting based on the Geneva Conventions and international law. He said “war is lawless” and that he would support that view “until the day he dies.” He also praised the economic models of France and Germany, forgetting about the whole Democratic socialism and parliamentary system of government thing. His attitude summed up via gif:
Ron Paul had his best debate ever. When you listen to him talk on foreign policy, you forget about his harsh anti-abortion stances and non-support of civil rights law. When the other candidates were endorsing torture and assassinating Americans, Paul kept insisting (rightly) that you cannot do that and expect to be seen as a beacon of democracy or to have any moral ground when expecting other countries to obey the same laws. He said torture is illegal, immoral, impractical, uncivilized, and un-American. He pointed out that the others were endorsing giving authority to the president and a panel to assassinate people when “we don’t trust them to even run our health care” and exclaimed, “You better look at that idea real carefully!” He also pointed out the US keeps supporting then overthrowing dictators and that’s “costly foreign policy” to continue.
Rick Santorum acted as Newt Gingrich’s echo chamber. His standout fail was when he claimed the US must “follow the Geneva Convention” and endorsed waterboarding in the same sentence. He also proclaimed the use of torture unearthed vital information and it works, completely disregarding numerous published reports to the contrary. Again, facts are hard. Santorum had a Tom Clancy moment talking about how US intelligence shows there’s numerous dead “terrorist scientists,” “scientists” and “computer virus threats” in Russia and Iran, so the US should not be afraid to intervene. Y’know, the SAME intelligence service he agreed is incompetent. He was out of his element because he couldn’t talk about social wedge issues. Santorum was itching to scream, “NUKE THE GAY ABORTIONS!” but managed to keep it in check.
Jon Huntsman was, again, the adult in the room who reminded the others on the playground you can’t beat people up and take their lunch money just because you don’t like them. Huntsman had one of the best lines in a debate thus far when he disagreed with everyone but Paul and said we should come home from Afghanistan, saying, “I don’t want to be nation-building in Afghanistan when this nation needs to be built at home.” He also said a trade war with China was a stupid idea because it would adversely affect businesses in the US. Huntsman was the only person to recognize a military veteran for his service when said veteran asked a question about supporting torture. Huntsman said he did not and pointed to it setting a bad precedent. Huntsman and Paul should have debated foreign policy because each of them has a clear, articulate vision for US foreign policy. In other words, they know shit. Huntsman’s low was endorsing the Paul Ryan plan for deficit reduction. He’s smarter than that.
So there you have it. It’s somewhat terrifying for anyone but Huntsman or Paul to be taken seriously, especially on foreign affairs.
That just fucking happened.
Michele Bachmann on President Obama and current military operations.
For future reference:
kevindrakewriter replied to your photo: Goddammit. I knew I should have watched tonight’s…
You and Michele are going to be best buds now!
speesbag replied to your photo: Goddammit. I knew I should have watched tonight’s…
One person’s sarcasm is another person’s presidential nomination debate argument.
My evil plan shall commence.
YEAH! Come at me, Michele! Hopefully, I can rodeo clown long enough she forgets to go back to Washington D.C.
Goddammit. I knew I should have watched tonight’s GOP
See this Tweet? It’s from exactly one month ago.
Michele Bachmann took me up on my suggestion and put it out there tonight. Seriously. Here it is on Real Clear Politics: "The Devil Is In The Details" Of Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan
Michele Bachmann says if you turn Herman Cain’s “9-9-9” plan upside down it becomes 6-6-6. “I think the devil is in the details,” she said at the GOP debate hosted by Bloomberg and Washington Post.
So I was being sarcastic… but you owe me, Michele. There’s a reason I tagged it #NewConspiracyTheory.
It’s sad because it’s true… I’m not so sure the social wedge issues are going to whip up the same old base as much anymore. 2012 will be interesting.
Michele Bachmann and science are not BFFs. In other breaking news, water is wet.
Pre-1965, we had quotas that virtually eliminated immigration of anyone other than white immigrants. Is that what she meant? Or does she simply not understand history? Either way, she’s advocating for racist, ethnocentrist policies repealed by Congress nearly 50 years ago.
Bioethicists have joined together to offer a reward of $11,000 to anyone who can prove the child Michele Bachmann mentioned repeatedly on television this week actually became “mentally retarded” from the HPV vaccine. One of the scientists is from Bachmann’s home state of Minnesota.
The Minnesota Star Tribune reports:
Steven Miles, a U of M bioethics professor, said that he’ll give $1,000 if the medical records of the woman from Bachmann’s story are released and can be viewed by a medical professional.
His offer was upped by his former boss from the University of Minnesota, Art Caplan, who is now director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics. Caplan said he would match Miles’ challenge and offered $10,000 for proof of the HPV vaccine victim.
"These types of messages in this climate have the capacity to do enormous public health harm," Miles said of why he made the offer. "The woman, assuming she exists, put this claim into the public domain and it’s an extremely serious claim and it deserves to be analyzed."
Stupid scientists, trying to get in the way of a good story. Bachmann retreated a little, saying that she was essentially repeating what she was told. So if she hears a rumor Canada doesn’t like us, is she going to run to the UN and launch a bombing campaign? She has no problem scaring parents across America with vaccine myths.
I have a theory, one that was touched on by Crooks and Liars as well. Bachmann meant to say autism, based on debunked claims about vaccines and autism, and conflated it with mental retardation - two entirely different diagnoses. That woman may exist, and may have told Bachmann her daughter developed autism from vaccination. Here’s the problem - Let’s pretend, in an alternate bizarro universe, that vaccines could cause autism. The HPV vaccine is given most commonly at 12 years of age. According to the Mayo Clinic, children show symptoms at a very young age, sometimes as young as 12 months. The symptoms of autism would have been apparent long before age 12.
So long story short, Bachmann is probably full of it, and this woman either doesn’t exist, or is repeating the anti-vaccine myth that has been debunked many times over. It’s going to be tough for her to fully walk this one back. She justified it by saying, “I’m not a doctor, I’m not a scientist, I’m not a physician.” Oh, you’re not? So it wasn’t intended to be a factual statement? Then quit spreading misinformation.