President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[The_Noble_Cause]

All I am saying is she would win. I have never said who I would vote for.

Gee, what a head scratcher! Every post you make is either defending Hillary or putting down Trump. Somebody, quick, get Sherlock Holmes on the case!

LOL, that's a change from your earlier posts where you said Clinton was losing ground to Sanders and on and on and on. You are implying that you now know that you were wrong.

She did lose ground. Look at the demographics. Even in MA, which was practically a tie, Bill had to resort to running around to polling places with a bullhorn campaigning for his wife- which is AGAINST the law. Her entire campaign is sustained by magic coin tosses, Nixonian tricks, and a fifth column media.

I bet the RNC wished there was a true neocon running this year. But, if Cruz and Rubio hold enough delegates, maybe the RNC will nominate one anyway....but it will probably just be Romney again.

Neocon war-mongering shitbag, Bill Kristol, has already stated that he prefers Hillary to Trump.
Does that answer the question as to who the "true neocon" is?

After the Democrats win this election in a landslide,...

The fat old hag is not winning shit. Just tonight its been revealed that her IT worker, who set up the private sever, was granted immunity by the Justice Dept. Know what that means? Someone is about to squeal like a canary...

[The_Noble_Cause]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice has given immunity to a State Department employee who set up an email server for former Secretary of State and current Democratic presidential front-runner candidate Hillary Clinton, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

A senior U.S. law enforcement official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009, the newspaper reported. (http://wapo.st/1RqkIk2)

Last month, a federal judge ruled that State Department officials and aides to Clinton should be questioned under oath about whether her use of a private email system was an effort to skirt open records laws.

The ruling added to the uncertainty hovering over Clinton about the legal consequences of her decision to use a private email server in her home for her government work.

The FBI is investigating the decision to use a private server and is likely in coming months to ask Clinton and her aides how it was set up and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, the Post reported.

Clinton returned about 30,000 emails to the State Department in 2014, but said she deleted thousands of others her staff deemed not to be work-related.

(Reporting by Eric Walsh; Editing by Sandra Maler)

This is big. The shoe is about to drop.

[Monker]

All I am saying is she would win. I have never said who I would vote for.

Gee, what a head scratcher! Every post you make is either defending Hillary or putting down Trump. Somebody, quick, get Sherlock Holmes on the case!

Well, that means I wouldn't vote for Trump, but that doesn't mean I am voting for her, either. We really don't know who the nominees are yet. For the Republicans, they may force someone more acceptable to be the nominee...they are so stupid that they may actually do that.

She did lose ground. Look at the demographics. Even in MA, which was practically a tie, Bill had to resort to running around to polling places with a bullhorn campaigning for his wife- which is AGAINST the law. Her entire campaign is sustained by magic coin tosses, Nixonian tricks, and a fifth column media.

You forgot Super delegates and a biased DNC. LOL

All of the above simply means that I was right, she will win.

I bet the RNC wished there was a true neocon running this year. But, if Cruz and Rubio hold enough delegates, maybe the RNC will nominate one anyway....but it will probably just be Romney again.

Neocon war-mongering shitbag, Bill Kristol, has already stated that he prefers Hillary to Trump.
Does that answer the question as to who the "true neocon" is?

If you read what I said, I was implying a neocon running for the Republican nomination.

Clinton may be closer to a neocon than Trump, maybe. It's really hard to tell because Trump redefines his opinion on any given subject on a whim.

After the Democrats win this election in a landslide,...

The fat old hag is not winning shit. Just tonight its been revealed that her IT worker, who set up the private sever, was granted immunity by the Justice Dept. Know what that means? Someone is about to squeal like a canary...[/quote][/quote]

No, what it means is people like you and KC will have something to get all excited about for a few days until it comes to mean absolutely nothing.

[JBlake]

Monker could be right on his last statement,TNC. Never underestamate a Clintons ability to lie their way out of any illegal thing they have done. Knowing they are guilty, and proving it are two different things. Even if she is caught, democrats will still vote for her. Party before country for liberals. After all, Bryan Pagliano could have a car accident or blow his head off before it's over.

Liberals and Democrats are both delusional and dysfunctional. For example, Liberals and democrats will conduct business on the belief that everyone is to be treated equally, yet they offer preferential treatment to non-whites and hold whites to a much higher standard then non-whites. And how about all the Liberals and democrats who are rallying behind Romney's statements about Trump today? Yeah, the same guy they hated for what he had said on hidden tape years ago when he himself was running for pres.

This is why I skip over Monker posts. It's easy. Just look for that avatar and scroll past it. I'd feel like I was rick rolled if he ever changes that avatar and handle and I read the post before figuring out it was him/her.

[verslibre]

[S2M]

I hope Trump wins the Presidency. Not only will some of the 'disenfranchised electorate' move north to America's hat, but SNL and Bill Maher will have a fucking field day!

All in all it's just a...nother Prick and a wall.

[Monker]

Monker could be right on his last statement,TNC. Never underestamate a Clintons ability to lie their way out of any illegal thing they have done. Knowing they are guilty, and proving it are two different things. Even if she is caught, democrats will still vote for her. Party before country for liberals. After all, Bryan Pagliano could have a car accident or blow his head off before it's over.

Or, he'll be interviewed and back up everything Clinton has said.

[Monker]

[And how about all the Liberals and democrats who are rallying behind Romney's statements about Trump today? Yeah, the same guy they hated for what he had said on hidden tape years ago when he himself was running for pres.

This is why I skip over Monker posts. It's easy. Just look for that avatar and scroll past it. I'd feel like I was rick rolled if he ever changes that avatar and handle and I read the post before figuring out it was him/her.

Oh, yeah, all those liberal Democrats, like John McCain, having Romney's back.

Democrats are fawning over the self-implosion of the Republican party. I could see it coming 6yrs ago when the Tea Party first came about and they started nominating people to congress who had NO CHANCE of winning. Now they are doing the same thing to the Presidency...and the "establishment" knows it. Some, like Romney, are being vocal because they don't want it to happen. Others are letting it pass hoping to preserve some legitimacy for the party and allow the Tea Party to pee on their own parade to get it out of their system....and hopefully learn how to win a national election someday.

No matter what Republicans do now, they have lost the Presidency this year.

[Monker]

Monker could be right on his last statement,TNC. Never underestamate a Clintons ability to lie their way out of any illegal thing they have done. Knowing they are guilty, and proving it are two different things. Even if she is caught, democrats will still vote for her. Party before country for liberals. After all, Bryan Pagliano could have a car accident or blow his head off before it's over.

Or, he'll be interviewed and back up everything Clinton has said.

Right. "I'm not sure". "I don't recall". "I don't remember".

Yep, he could do that, too.

[Monker]

Works for her. Until now.

It is so funny how you guys think. You have absolutely no idea what this guy is going to say. You just assume it is going to be what YOU want him to say. In fact, you don't just assume it, you absolutely believe it is a FACT that he is going to say what YOU want. That is the reality you live in.

The problem is your reality and the reality of what actually happens has consistently been two very different things.

And, instead of worrying about your party splitting, Romney taking over the nomination, or Rubio and/or Cruz fighting Trump at the convention, or Trump running as an independent......you would MUCH rather focus on Democrats and their perceived problems.

If Republicans don't start cleaning up their own house, they will not even have a party to nominate a candidate in 4yrs to run against President Clinton.

Now I saw on CNN that a certain former wrestler and Governor of MN may run as a Libertarian. Wow, this thing just keeps getting more and more hysterical.

[The_Noble_Cause]

It is so funny how you guys think. You have absolutely no idea what this guy is going to say. You just assume it is going to be what YOU want him to say. In fact, you don't just assume it, you absolutely believe it is a FACT that he is going to say what YOU want. That is the reality you live in.

Yea, or maybe KC and others here are just more informed than you, and know that someone is granted immunity by a judge because they are going to to testify before a grand jury. With any luck, Hillary will be the first presidential candidate to seek the nom behind bars since Eugene Debs.

And, instead of worrying about your party splitting, Romney taking over the nomination, or Rubio and/or Cruz fighting Trump at the convention, or Trump running as an independent......you would MUCH rather focus on Democrats and their perceived problems.

Actually, this sounds alot like you. Always complaining about Trump and never discussing Hillary's record. Trump's speech yesterday blasted trade policies like NAFTA and TPP. His newly released healthcare plan fights for the re-importation of drugs. I'm a liberal. These issues speak to me. And once upon a time, these issues were front and center in the Democratic Party.

Now I saw on CNN that a certain former wrestler and Governor of MN may run as a Libertarian. Wow, this thing just keeps getting more and more hysterical.

Ventura, like Trump, is a superior choice to Clinton.

[Monker]

Now I saw on CNN that a certain former wrestler and Governor of MN may run as a Libertarian. Wow, this thing just keeps getting more and more hysterical.

Ventura, like Trump, is a superior choice to Clinton.

Ventura would be an awesome addition to the circus. He condemned the entire Republican field as being in favor of war crimes by saying they are in favor of torture, "they should all be water boarded." And, I'm sure he feels Clinton should be executed by firing squad for treason, too. LOL...too fun.

Digging up Ronald Reagan's corpse and having it reanimated robotically would be a better candidate than Donald Trump. He contradicts himself every time he opens his mouth. Even in the Health Care plan you mention, he does not even mention an individual mandate, which he said he was in favor of. All he does is try to say what people want to hear...and the naïve people of this country buy into it....and he knows it. And, you are right, he sounds like a Democrat most of the time...which is why I believe so many Republicans will not vote in the election if he is nominated. Trump is unelectable.

[Monker]

Trump stood there like an empty suit last night with only talking point answers. It was proven he was a flip flopper, sometimes contridicting himself in the same sentence. Still, he's leagues better then Miss Russian Reset, Benghazi, Syria, ect. Now they are looking into campaign funding fraud with her. How much smoke and heat does a moron need to know there is a fire?

How many times does a person have to retread over the same issue before a moron realizes that no fire exists and the only smoke is what is in his empty skull?

[The_Noble_Cause]

Trump stood there like an empty suit last night with only talking point answers. It was proven he was a flip flopper, sometimes contridicting himself in the same sentence. Still, he's leagues better then Miss Russian Reset, Benghazi, Syria, ect. Now they are looking into campaign funding fraud with her. How much smoke and heat does a moron need to know there is a fire?

How many times does a person have to retread over the same issue before a moron realizes that no fire exists and the only smoke is what is in his empty skull?

Said a stupid, blind lemming.

If the FBI brought charges against Petraeus, there is no reasonable excuse for Hillary not to be charged. Unless, of course, Monker thinks there is a separate set of rules for the 1% and everyone else? I wouldn't vote for Hillary just based on her lies about sniper fire. The woman gives lying politicians a bad name. Larry "wide stance" Craig would make a better president.

[Boomchild]

If the FBI brought charges against Petraeus, there is no reasonable excuse for Hillary not to be charged. Unless, of course, Monker thinks there is a separate set of rules for the 1% and everyone else? I wouldn't vote for Hillary just based on her lies about sniper fire. The woman gives lying politicians a bad name. Larry "wide stance" Craig would make a better president.

The difference here is that we are talking about Hillary Clinton. Also, this would reflect very badly at the administration. That something like this could occur at such a top and highly visible level of the administration.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Good for Bernie. Of course, right on time, the media and all of Hillary's supporters, are claiming this was a sexist attack by Bernie. She interrupts him to spew bullshit, he stands up for himself, and now he is painted as a sexist. Again, good on Bernie for telling her to pretty much shut the fuck up.

[Monker]

If the FBI brought charges against Petraeus, there is no reasonable excuse for Hillary not to be charged. Unless, of course, Monker thinks there is a separate set of rules for the 1% and everyone else? I wouldn't vote for Hillary just based on her lies about sniper fire. The woman gives lying politicians a bad name. Larry "wide stance" Craig would make a better president.

There is a huge, huge difference. Patraeus knowingly passed on documents that were marked classified to his biographer.

None of these of these documents were marked classified when Clinton received them. And, she didn't take Email that was marked classified and pass that information on in the same way that Patraeus did. It's a totally different situation.

All this stuff with Clinton is politics. All you have to do is consider when stuff is happening...just before the Iowa caucus, just before Super Tuesday. And, it all ends up meaning nothing.

[Monker]

If the FBI brought charges against Petraeus, there is no reasonable excuse for Hillary not to be charged. Unless, of course, Monker thinks there is a separate set of rules for the 1% and everyone else? I wouldn't vote for Hillary just based on her lies about sniper fire. The woman gives lying politicians a bad name. Larry "wide stance" Craig would make a better president.

The difference here is that we are talking about Hillary Clinton. Also, this would reflect very badly at the administration. That something like this could occur at such a top and highly visible level of the administration.

No it's not. You are comparing books of highly classified material being given to a biographer being compared to Email conversation that are marked "classified" after the fact that were shared with nobody. Totally different.

[Monker]

Once in a while, Hillary has to confront the truth. Feeling the BERN.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-s ... 38092.html

You're a nut. If you watched the debate, they both had their turn and in the end it seemed like nobody ended up ahead...which benefits Clinton since she is so far ahead, and Bernie turns out looking like a desperate Trump wannabe.

Bernie's best moment was when he talked about increasing funding for treating the mentally ill, and if you watched the Republican debate, you can understand why.

The bottom line is Bernie needed a huge victory in the debate, and maybe Clinton having a bad night. Neither happened. Even if you think Bernie won the night, it wasn't enough to get him the nomination.

[Boomchild]

All this stuff with Clinton is politics. All you have to do is consider when stuff is happening...just before the Iowa caucus, just before Super Tuesday. And, it all ends up meaning nothing.

Except for the fact that she was communicating state business on a non government secured email system. Which is a violation in itself. That's not politics. That's fact. Sorry but THAT means something.

[steveo777]

Apparently there is nothing indictable about:

Espionage
Treason
Security breaches
Peddling political influence
Quid pro quo
Lying under oath to congress
Finding people to transfer classified documents to an unsecured environment
Giving her password to an IT guy to set up her private server
Murder
Money laundering
Rico act violations
Wire fraud
Weapon running
Lying to the families of Benghazi victims and the public

[The_Noble_Cause]

Once in a while, Hillary has to confront the truth. Feeling the BERN.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-s ... 38092.html

You're a nut. If you watched the debate, they both had their turn and in the end it seemed like nobody ended up ahead...which benefits Clinton since she is so far ahead, and Bernie turns out looking like a desperate Trump wannabe.

Bernie's best moment was when he talked about increasing funding for treating the mentally ill, and if you watched the Republican debate, you can understand why.

The bottom line is Bernie needed a huge victory in the debate, and maybe Clinton having a bad night. Neither happened. Even if you think Bernie won the night, it wasn't enough to get him the nomination.

Did we watch the same debate? On fracking, she hemmed and hawed. On releasing her transcripts, she obfuscated. Her opening salvo of the night about Bernie being against the auto-bailout was an outright lie. Bernie was direct and to the point. When Don Lemon asked her a question she dodged and said "Will you ask Bernie the same question?" She did terrible. You are such a water-carrying toe sucker. Truly pathetic.

[The_Noble_Cause]

No it's not. You are comparing books of highly classified material being given to a biographer being compared to Email conversation that are marked "classified" after the fact that were shared with nobody. Totally different.

Lol. Yea, you're clearly not in the tank at all. The retroactive classification is spin by the Hillary campaign. The fact is the vast majority of the emails remain too sensitive to be even made public. Correspondences regarding foreign governments marked "for your eyes only" are not exactly spam emails for Viagra!

None of these of these documents were marked classified when Clinton received them.

WRONG. You may as well argue that Bill did not use Monica's puss as a humidor. Currently, only 2000 emails have been retroactively classified - out of more than 30,000! Why don't you just lay your cards on the table and admit you are here to do Hillary's bidding. HACK!

[Monker]

WRONG. You may as well argue that Bill did not use Monica's puss as a humidor. Currently, only 2000 emails have been retroactively classified - out of more than 30,000! Why don't you just lay your cards on the table and admit you are here to do Hillary's bidding. HACK!

[/quote]

You said there was no difference between what Patraeus did and what Clinton did. YOU just stated above the difference.

Patraeus gave books containing information he KNEW was classified to his biographer. He ADMITTED it was classified when he gave it to her. He passed on classified information to a private citizen, and ADMITTED to that citizen that it was classified.

Clinton did not do this - at all. She's not even accused of it.

What you just said above is "retroactively classified". Whether you like it or not, that means that Clinton can make the argument that she did not send nor receive any Email's marked "classified". Unless she KNEW she was handling classified information, and it can be PROVEN she knew, then there is no case against her. Patraeus not only knew the books contained classified information, but TOLD OTHERS that they did...including the recipient...and he passed it on anyway. THAT is a HUGE difference.

[Monker]

On fracking, she hemmed and hawed.

No she didn't. She said she would regulate it to the point where it would be impossible to do it.

On releasing her transcripts, she obfuscated.

She simply repeated what she has been saying for months, that she would release the transcripts when everybody else running is required to do the same. Which prompted Sanders to throw up his hands and say "here's my mine, I don't have any because I don't make speeches to Wallstreet." Which has been his standard response...So, it comes out being a draw. At this point in time, a draw means Clinton wins because Sanders needs to start coming out ahead.

Her opening salvo of the night about Bernie being against the auto-bailout was an outright lie.

Of which Bernie did not explain WHY it was a "lie". So, Clinton pushed the vote on the full bailout bill and Bernie pushed that he wasn't going to bail out Wallstreet...again, a draw. If he had followed up stating that she was lying because he sponsored a bill to bail out the auto industry separate from Wallstreet, he would have come out ahead. In fact, since Bernie did not say this, he may have come out on the losing side since this was in Michigan where the auto industry is a very big issue...probably bigger than Wallstreet.

Bernie was direct and to the point. When Don Lemon asked her a question she dodged and said "Will you ask Bernie the same question?"

And, Bernie said, "He probably will." It sounded like a joke to me...very insignificant, and it wasn't a dodge, because she answered the question.

She did terrible. You are such a water-carrying toe sucker. Truly pathetic.

They both did good. Neither topped the other....a draw. And, like I said, at this point a draw means Clinton wins. Bernie needed to score big in this debate and he simply did not do that.

[The_Noble_Cause]

No she didn't. She said she would regulate it to the point where it would be impossible to do it.

And what was Bernie's answer? "No I do not support fracking" THE END. One reply is a profile in leadership and taking a position. The other is hedging bets, weasel words, and business as usual.

She simply repeated what she has been saying for months, that she would release the transcripts when everybody else running is required to do the same. Which prompted Sanders to throw up his hands and say "here's my mine, I don't have any because I don't make speeches to Wallstreet." Which has been his standard response...So, it comes out being a draw. At this point in time, a draw means Clinton wins because Sanders needs to start coming out ahead.

One candidate released his transcript. A speech Bernie made in 2011 and the proceeds (all 500 dollars of it) were donated to charity. The other continues to hide behind levitating goalposts. First it was all candidates - presumably the Democrats. Now it includes the Republicans. After Trump releases his SPEECH transcripts in the general, Hillary will change it to include all members of the European Union. Or Kofi Annan's valedictorian speech. What is she hiding? Her inability to answer a question straightforwardly is not a "draw" in any sense of the term. That's an ole fashioned crips and bloods curb-stomping. Addressing her extravagant speaking fees, she recently said "that's what they offered." More lies.

Of which Bernie did not explain WHY it was a "lie".

So you agree she DID lie. Great. Glad we agree. You have fun voting for an unmasked exposed serial liar.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You said there was no difference between what Patraeus did and what Clinton did. YOU just stated above the difference.

Patraeus gave books containing information he KNEW was classified to his biographer. He ADMITTED it was classified when he gave it to her. He passed on classified information to a private citizen, and ADMITTED to that citizen that it was classified.

Clinton did not do this - at all. She's not even accused of it.

What you just said above is "retroactively classified". Whether you like it or not, that means that Clinton can make the argument that she did not send nor receive any Email's marked "classified". Unless she KNEW she was handling classified information, and it can be PROVEN she knew, then there is no case against her. Patraeus not only knew the books contained classified information, but TOLD OTHERS that they did...including the recipient...and he passed it on anyway. THAT is a HUGE difference.

It is already documented that several of the emails were SAP emails. These are emails that are soo top secret that you require a special code to access them. These were not elevated to "classified" status. They are ALWAYS considered classified. Again, you are a total hack. Get the fuck out of here.

[Monker]

All this stuff with Clinton is politics. All you have to do is consider when stuff is happening...just before the Iowa caucus, just before Super Tuesday. And, it all ends up meaning nothing.

Except for the fact that she was communicating state business on a non government secured email system. Which is a violation in itself. That's not politics. That's fact. Sorry but THAT means something.

That's just not true. She had permission to use it. In fact, one of the long spam posts from FF contained the conversation where it was inquired if having her own server was OK.

We can go round and round about this...these things you are talking about are well known. If she was to be in trouble for them, it would have happened YEARS ago. Everything that is happening right now is politics.

[Monker]

No she didn't. She said she would regulate it to the point where it would be impossible to do it.

And what was Bernie's answer? "No I do not support fracking" THE END. One reply is a profile in leadership and taking a position. The other is hedging bets, weasel words, and business as usual.

That may be your view...but I doubt VERY much that is the view of the majority of the viewers.

One candidate released his transcript. A speech Bernie made in 2011 and the proceeds (all 500 dollars of it) were donated to charity. The other continues to hide behind levitating goalposts. First it was all candidates - presumably the Democrats. Now it includes the Republicans. After Trump releases his SPEECH transcripts in the general, Hillary will change it to include all members of the European Union. Or Kofi Annan's valedictorian speech. What is she hiding? Her inability to answer a question straightforwardly is not a "draw" in any sense of the term. That's an ole fashioned crips and bloods curb-stomping. Addressing her extravagant speaking fees, she recently said "that's what they offered." More lies.

She answered the question. You may not like her answer and have critique. However, Bernie is the one running for the nomination...he is the one who is not going on the offensive and pointing these things out. He is the one who stopping short of winning these debates. He is the one who is proving himself a weak candidate.

Of which Bernie did not explain WHY it was a "lie".

So you agree she DID lie. Great. Glad we agree. You have fun voting for an unmasked exposed serial liar.[/quote]
[quote]

No, I put "lie" in quotes because I was quoting YOU. If BERNIE believed it was a "lie" he did not do nearly enough to prove it.

When it is all said and done, Bernie did not win the debate and is on his way to losing the nomination.

[Monker]

Mahoning County Ohio sees 1k Dems defect to GOP

About 1,000 Democrats in Mahoning County so far have switched their party affiliation to Republican with election officials saying several did it to vote for Donald Trump, the GOP presidential front-runner. “We are seeing something this election cycle I’ve never seen before to this degree,” said board Chairman Mark Munroe, who’s also the county Republican chairman. “Every day I take phone calls or get voice messages from people saying they’ve been Democrats all their life and they’ve had it. They want to vote for Donald Trump. I’m surprised at the volume of inquiries we’re getting. It’s remarkable.”

So, FF, how toes it feel to have a Democrat winning the Republican nomination? Trump isn't just a RINO, he's a chameleon.