President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[RedWingFan]

I just grow weary of the blame and terms like "lied", "murder", etc heeped on one guy.

If he's president, it's his responsibilty. If he refuses to take responsibility, then he's not much of a president.

You mean like Obama's AG saying he made the call to bring Gitmo detainees to NY and put them on trial here? Giving terrorists access to a buffet of government information.

The AG laid down the law at told Obama how it was going to be. Right!!!

Again, a bunch of hocus pocus BS from Republicans who have to offer this country other then 'be afraid'. Yeah, the US prison system is just full of 'government information'. What an idiotic comment.

Not the "prison system" you bi-gendered baffoon!!! The legal system! You don't think terrorists learned what and how our government acquires info on terrorist activities during the WTC '93 trial? When our informants overseas identities and locations are revealed, you don't think that makes others not want to give us information??? Why am I even wasting my time with you?

[hoagiepete]

I've said it before here...I had buddies and son's of friends stationed in Kuwait during the Clinton administration. There were plans to invade Iraq back then, but for what ever reason, Clinton didn't pull the trigger. GW didn't just make this all up to be "his war."

Again...selective memories forget this and the fact that Iraq continued to thumb their nose at the UN.

That is such a BS argument. Having a 'plan' and actually doing it are two different things. It's Bush's "war", like it or not.

No BS. Simply stating this was in the works and being contemplated long before GW took office. It is his war, indeed, but it is not something he just dreamed up to fuck over our troops and the US as many of the posts here lead to believe.

I probably give too many people too much credit, but I firmly believe they had legitimate reasons for the good of our country to do it. Again...why would they put our troops at risk if they didn't?

[Ehwmatt]

If you would like to check your state for this fraud simply click here http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/olm111.html
find out how many districts your state has and then go to www.recovery.gov and you can cross check your state.

This is amazing.

We are being screwed, blued and tattooed.

We sure are

[The_Noble_Cause]

No BS. Simply stating this was in the works and being contemplated long before GW took office.

No, "regime change" had been in the works, and that can take many forms - not just war.
Y'know, we also have contingency plans drawn up to attack North Korea and Iran.
Do you mean to say that pins on a battle map are no different than actually giving the orders to invade?
Give it a rest.

but I firmly believe they had legitimate reasons for the good of our country to do it. Again...why would they put our troops at risk if they didn't?

For a Conservative who has a knee-jerk distrust of all-things government, this sounds shockingly naive.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Seems regressive....not progressive, but that's just me.

You're assuming that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has been politicized.
Where's your proof?

[hoagiepete]

No BS. Simply stating this was in the works and being contemplated long before GW took office.

No, "regime change" had been in the works, and that can take many forms - not just war.
Y'know, we also have contingency plans drawn up to attack North Korea and Iran.
Do you mean to say that pins on a battle map are no different than actually giving the orders to invade?
Give it a rest.

but I firmly believe they had legitimate reasons for the good of our country to do it. Again...why would they put our troops at risk if they didn't?

For a Conservative who has a knee-jerk distrust of all-things government, this sounds shockingly naive.

I admitted it was "his war" and my naiveté about them entering this for the good of our country. What else do you want?

Still haven't heard of a legitimate argument as to why they did it if they didn't believe it was best for us.

For whatever reason, I trust our government a hell of a lot more for defense than I do the pandering efforts on social issues...on both sides of the aisle.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I admitted it was "his war" and my naiveté about them entering this for the good of our country. What else do you want?

This is true, but out of the other side of your mouth you also invoke Clinton to give Bush semi-political cover.
At the end of the day, there is a helluva difference between pushing the red button and just making idle chitchat about it

Still haven't heard of a legitimate argument as to why they did it if they didn't believe it was best for us.

Plenty of Bush confidants have sung like a canary (O'Neil, Clarke, Wilkerson, Herskowitz, Anzar etc).
Choose a favorite.

For whatever reason, I trust our government a hell of a lot more for defense than I do the pandering efforts on social issues...on both sides of the aisle.

I don't.
Heed the warning of the last sane Republican president and "Beware the military industrial complex!"

[hoagiepete]

Still haven't heard of a legitimate argument as to why they did it if they didn't believe it was best for us.

Plenty of Bush confidants have sung like a canary (O'Neil, Clarke, Wilkerson, Herskowitz, Anzar etc).
Choose a favorite.

For whatever reason, I trust our government a hell of a lot more for defense than I do the pandering efforts on social issues...on both sides of the aisle.

I don't.
Heed the warning of the last sane Republican president and "Beware the military industrial complex!"

Did their "singing" offer the reasons why we entered in?

You are probably correct on trusting the "complex".

[JrnyScarab]

Seems regressive....not progressive, but that's just me.

Since when are you in favor of anything progressive?

[Behshad]

FactFinder.
We all know your main source of info is Limbaugh.

My question is , does he give you a headsup & insider info in the morning after you two get up and take a shower,,, together or is it hush hush Rush ?!

[Behshad]

FactFinder.
We all know your main source of info is Limbaugh.

My question is , does he give you a headsup & insider info in the morning after you two get up and take a shower,,, together or is it hush hush Rush ?!

You are so wrong it ain't funny, but thanks for playing.

BTW, do you get your news from Stewart,Colbert and South Park lke Monker does?

I get my news from you .
Sorry about the Limaugh think , I know you're not proud of it. Your secret is safe with me, starting NOW

[Behshad]

Well call it what you want, but I'd say Rush Limbaugh thinks like I DO. I don't need to listen to him. It comes natural to me.

Hannity I CAN"T STAND.
Beck..ehhhhhh OK I get his point...theatrics bore me.
O'Riley...Almost never
Rush..maybe 3 hours a week if I'm in the car.
92.5 WOFX The Fox....rest of the time.

Hard for me to keep your secret , when you talk about it out in the open yknow ;(

[The_Noble_Cause]

The proof is in the pudding. Just 6 months ago the USPSTF said this...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02792.html

Mammogram Rates Seem To Be Slipping

The U.S Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of experts working under the Department of Health and Human Services, recommends that women older than 40 get a mammogram every one to two years. The task force finds the test most helpful for women between ages 50 and 69, for whom it says the evidence is strongest that screening lowers death rates from breast cancer. Other groups, including the American Medical Association, suggest a more rigorous schedule, saying the test should be done every year; insurers often pay for annual tests.

Now today a sudden big change of heart. In fact a 10 year change of heart. That's huge. Billions saved in one fell swoop.

This doesn’t prove jack.
We already know the doctors and experts on the panel have changed their mind.
THAT'S the story.
In those six months, have the doctors and experts come under political pressure?
Has there been new appointments made to the panel?
Until then, you’re just engaging in classic logical fallacy.
B may follow A, but A didn’t necessarily cause B.

Here’s the names of the panel.
Get Glenn Beck’s “constitutional watchdogs” to see what they can dig up. LOL
My guess is they’ve probably served on several administrations.

Bruce N. Calonge, M.D., M.P.H. (Chair)
Chief Medical Officer and State Epidemiologist
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO

Diana B. Petitti, M.D., M.P.H. (Vice Chair)
Professor of Biomedical Informatics
Fulton School of Engineering
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

Susan Curry, Ph.D.
Dean, College of Public Health
Distinguished Professor
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA

Allen J. Dietrich, M.D.
Professor, Community and Family Medicine
Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH

Thomas G. DeWitt, M.D.
Carl Weihl Professor of Pediatrics
Director of the Division of General and Community Pediatrics
Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH

Kimberly D. Gregory, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Women’s Health Services Research
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA

David Grossman, M.D., M.P.H.
Medical Director, Preventive Care and Senior Investigator, Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative
Professor of Health Services and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics
University of Washington, Seattle, WA

George Isham, M.D., M.S.
Medical Director and Chief Health Officer
HealthPartners, Minneapolis, MN

Michael L. LeFevre, M.D., M.S.P.H.
Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine
University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO

Rosanne Leipzig, M.D., Ph.D
Professor, Geriatrics and Adult Development, Medicine, Health Policy
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY

Lucy N. Marion, Ph.D., R.N.
Dean and Professor, School of Nursing
Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA

Joy Melnikow, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine
Associate Director, Center for Healthcare Policy and Research
University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA

Bernadette Melnyk, Ph.D., R.N., C.P.N.P./N.P.P.
Dean and Distinguished Foundation Professor in Nursing
College of Nursing & Healthcare Innovation
Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ

Wanda Nicholson, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A.
Associate Professor
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD

J. Sanford (Sandy) Schwartz, M.D.
Leon Hess Professor of Medicine, Health Management, and Economics
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and Wharton School, Philadelphia, PA

Timothy Wilt, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor, Department of Medicine, Minneapolis VA Medical Center
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

[Behshad]

Damn you FactFinder. See what you did?! Now TNC is copying & pasting. Damn you.

[Monker]

I just grow weary of the blame and terms like "lied", "murder", etc heeped on one guy.

If he's president, it's his responsibilty. If he refuses to take responsibility, then he's not much of a president.

You mean like Obama's AG saying he made the call to bring Gitmo detainees to NY and put them on trial here? Giving terrorists access to a buffet of government information.

The AG laid down the law at told Obama how it was going to be. Right!!!

Again, a bunch of hocus pocus BS from Republicans who have to offer this country other then 'be afraid'. Yeah, the US prison system is just full of 'government information'. What an idiotic comment.

Not the "prison system" you bi-gendered baffoon!!! The legal system! You don't think terrorists learned what and how our government acquires info on terrorist activities during the WTC '93 trial? When our informants overseas identities and locations are revealed, you don't think that makes others not want to give us information??? Why am I even wasting my time with you?

I really don't care. You are just blabbing on about a made up bunch of bullshit . Let them go to trial in NY, or where ever...it will make absolutely no difference one way or the other.

[Behshad]

Where are the girls at on this topic?

I'd like to hear their take.

Lady Lula !! come give FF what he deserves

[Monker]

I've said it before here...I had buddies and son's of friends stationed in Kuwait during the Clinton administration. There were plans to invade Iraq back then, but for what ever reason, Clinton didn't pull the trigger. GW didn't just make this all up to be "his war."

Again...selective memories forget this and the fact that Iraq continued to thumb their nose at the UN.

That is such a BS argument. Having a 'plan' and actually doing it are two different things. It's Bush's "war", like it or not.

No BS. Simply stating this was in the works and being contemplated long before GW took office. It is his war, indeed, but it is not something he just dreamed up to fuck over our troops and the US as many of the posts here lead to believe.

I probably give too many people too much credit, but I firmly believe they had legitimate reasons for the good of our country to do it. Again...why would they put our troops at risk if they didn't?

Yes, it is a BS argument. Bush was in office, Bush is accountable for HIS war. If it by some miracle had been a success, would any neo-con worhiper be giving Clinton credit for the 'plan'? Don't think so.

[treetopovskaya]

Where are the girls at on this topic?

I'd like to hear their take.

breast cancer strikes young people & kills young people. i have a friend who is currently fighting & winning... this is her second time in 5 years... & she just turned 41 last sunday. }:C)

(men should be checking for breast cancer too.)

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/i ... nightmare/

[strangegrey]

Yes, it is a BS argument. Bush was in office, Bush is accountable for HIS war. If it by some miracle had been a success, would any neo-con worhiper be giving Clinton credit for the 'plan'? Don't think so.

If only the war spanned over two different presidents....oh wait. It does.

It's no longer Bush's war anymore, genius.

[Ehwmatt]

Ladies and gentleman, your tax dollars at work... National "No Complaining" Day

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/18/fin ... g-so-much/


Unfuckinbelievable. This guy should be thrown out of office yesterday for wasting time and money.

They are trying to silence the quickly growing vocal majority that is fed up with the garbage this Congress and administration are foisting on us by passing a "No Complaining" day...?! LOL!!!!

[Angel]

Where are the girls at on this topic?

I'd like to hear their take.

From an evidence based health care perspective only....yes, studies are showing that routine self breast exams and routine mammograms for LOW RISK women do not appear to improve outcomes......The evidence is there, politics aside.

[Ehwmatt]

Where are the girls at on this topic?

I'd like to hear their take.

From an evidence based health care perspective only....yes, studies are showing that routine self breast exams and routine mammograms for LOW RISK women do not appear to improve outcomes......The evidence is there, politics aside.

Now, maybe I'm confusing lay and professional terms, but the article FF posted says average risk, not low risk women, need not be mammogrammed more frequently than every other year. I read average to mean 50%, or at least certainly something above a low risk, as you state. As I said, maybe this is a classic case of lay and professional usage getting mixed up, so I apologize in advance if that's what's going on here.

At any rate, why are they dictating what treatments should and shouldn't be received? When medical/science data seem to change overnight, these types of decrees scare the hell out of me and are an ominous harbinger of things to come.

This is a piddling example next to breast cancer, but they used to say you needed alcohol-based hand sanitizers, then they said oh no, don't use sanitizers with alcohol, it's bad for your skin, then they just recently came out and said Oh man, you need to use at least 60% alcohol-based hand sanitizers or they're worthless... We all know these "studies" come out with new findings every fuckin day seemingly. So, the general premise/approach is quite disconcerting.

[Saint John]

Titties need to be protected and the best way to do so is with insurance covered annual exams starting at age 35. Period.

[hoagiepete]

The proof is in the pudding. Just 6 months ago the USPSTF said this...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02792.html

Mammogram Rates Seem To Be Slipping

The U.S Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of experts working under the Department of Health and Human Services, recommends that women older than 40 get a mammogram every one to two years. The task force finds the test most helpful for women between ages 50 and 69, for whom it says the evidence is strongest that screening lowers death rates from breast cancer. Other groups, including the American Medical Association, suggest a more rigorous schedule, saying the test should be done every year; insurers often pay for annual tests.

Now today a sudden big change of heart. In fact a 10 year change of heart. That's huge. Billions saved in one fell swoop.

This doesn’t prove jack.
We already know the doctors and experts on the panel have changed their mind.
THAT'S the story.
In those six months, have the doctors and experts come under political pressure?
Has there been new appointments made to the panel?
Until then, you’re just engaging in classic logical fallacy.
B may follow A, but A didn’t necessarily cause B.

Here’s the names of the panel.
Get Glenn Beck’s “constitutional watchdogs” to see what they can dig up. LOL
My guess is they’ve probably served on several administrations.

Bruce N. Calonge, M.D., M.P.H. (Chair)
Chief Medical Officer and State Epidemiologist
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO

Diana B. Petitti, M.D., M.P.H. (Vice Chair)
Professor of Biomedical Informatics
Fulton School of Engineering
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

Susan Curry, Ph.D.
Dean, College of Public Health
Distinguished Professor
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA

Allen J. Dietrich, M.D.
Professor, Community and Family Medicine
Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH

Thomas G. DeWitt, M.D.
Carl Weihl Professor of Pediatrics
Director of the Division of General and Community Pediatrics
Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH

Kimberly D. Gregory, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Women’s Health Services Research
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA

David Grossman, M.D., M.P.H.
Medical Director, Preventive Care and Senior Investigator, Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative
Professor of Health Services and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics
University of Washington, Seattle, WA

George Isham, M.D., M.S.
Medical Director and Chief Health Officer
HealthPartners, Minneapolis, MN

Michael L. LeFevre, M.D., M.S.P.H.
Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine
University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO

Rosanne Leipzig, M.D., Ph.D
Professor, Geriatrics and Adult Development, Medicine, Health Policy
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY

Lucy N. Marion, Ph.D., R.N.
Dean and Professor, School of Nursing
Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA

Joy Melnikow, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine
Associate Director, Center for Healthcare Policy and Research
University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA

Bernadette Melnyk, Ph.D., R.N., C.P.N.P./N.P.P.
Dean and Distinguished Foundation Professor in Nursing
College of Nursing & Healthcare Innovation
Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ

Wanda Nicholson, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A.
Associate Professor
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD

J. Sanford (Sandy) Schwartz, M.D.
Leon Hess Professor of Medicine, Health Management, and Economics
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and Wharton School, Philadelphia, PA

Timothy Wilt, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor, Department of Medicine, Minneapolis VA Medical Center
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

I don't have an opinion on the subject of exams, but it scares me to see this many from academia on the commission. Academians are often way out of touch with the real world and are often prostituted by the research dollars that may come their way.

[donnaplease]

Yes, it is a BS argument. Bush was in office, Bush is accountable for HIS war. If it by some miracle had been a success, would any neo-con worhiper be giving Clinton credit for the 'plan'? Don't think so.

So, given your way of reasoning, the 10.2% unemployment rate IS Obama's fault, right?

[strangegrey]

Yes, it is a BS argument. Bush was in office, Bush is accountable for HIS war. If it by some miracle had been a success, would any neo-con worhiper be giving Clinton credit for the 'plan'? Don't think so.

So, given your way of reasoning, the 10.2% unemployment rate IS Obama's fault, right?

You're comparing apples and vaginal inserts here.

To wage war is a conscious/overt decission. The commander in chief of the armed forces, upon taking his oath of office last january, has every right to call the troops home and end these wars. An early campaign promise, if you chose to recall. The fact that he continued to wage war, that he by his own words, was started under 'false pretenses' is equivalent to a defacto claim to ownership. He's continued to wage war for almost an entire year past his oath of office.

If you buy a house and the seller had deliberately left issues with it, can you sue the owner for fraud the day you close? Can you do it a year later? Think hard! If it's too hard for you....I'll give you a hint...one's a yes the other is a no....


With respect to the unemployment rate, George W. Bush was responsible for a 7.6% unemployment rate (the rate we had when he left office). Obama is responsible for the difference....Both presidents are responsible for putting us in the economic fire we are in. Bush lit the fire, Obama came into office and poured jet fuel onto it. His policies have done nothing but eviscerate small business profits...and it's only getting worse.

BTW, if you think that the current rate is only 10.2%, you're naive. It's likely MUCH higher. Current estimates are around 17%....and MOST of the 17% above 10.2% IS Obama's responsibility. Unemployment rates do not include workers forcible reduced to part-time status and those that for one reason or another can not seek federal assistance (like myself, last march).

[Angel]

Where are the girls at on this topic?

I'd like to hear their take.

From an evidence based health care perspective only....yes, studies are showing that routine self breast exams and routine mammograms for LOW RISK women do not appear to improve outcomes......The evidence is there, politics aside.

Now, maybe I'm confusing lay and professional terms, but the article FF posted says average risk, not low risk women, need not be mammogrammed more frequently than every other year. I read average to mean 50%, or at least certainly something above a low risk, as you state. As I said, maybe this is a classic case of lay and professional usage getting mixed up, so I apologize in advance if that's what's going on here.

At any rate, why are they dictating what treatments should and shouldn't be received? When medical/science data seem to change overnight, these types of decrees scare the hell out of me and are an ominous harbinger of things to come.

This is a piddling example next to breast cancer, but they used to say you needed alcohol-based hand sanitizers, then they said oh no, don't use sanitizers with alcohol, it's bad for your skin, then they just recently came out and said Oh man, you need to use at least 60% alcohol-based hand sanitizers or they're worthless... We all know these "studies" come out with new findings every fuckin day seemingly. So, the general premise/approach is quite disconcerting.

I was using the term "low risk" loosely so low to average risk would be correct.

I was not addressing the political side of it at all, just simply stating what the evidence says. I agree with you 100% that the government should not "dictate" what screening is "allowed." I think all patients should be given the information and allowed to make a decision for themselves. The evidence shows that there is no reason for low to average risk women to need yearly mammograms so there is no reason to do them and increase healthcare costs-but that's a very general statement-if an indidvidual patient-for one reason or another-is more comfortable with more frequent screenings, then they should have them.

As far as studies conflicting each other.....well, yeah, that's the nature of the beast. The trick is to be able to sort out the well designed studies from the poorly designed studies and be able to understand what the results mean. For example, if I told a patient that she was 37 times more likely to have a rutured uterus in labor while attempting a vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC), that would be correct....AND, if I told her that she had a 0.1% chance of having a uterine rupture while attemtping a VBAC, both would be correct...it's all in how you spin the numbers. Which is why it is important for providers to give patients accurate and complete information and allow them to make decisions-people know what is best for themselves....and that is also why I don't feel that the government should step in and dictate what services are to be provided.

[Angel]

You're comparing apples and vaginal inserts here.

Sometimes they are one and the same....you'd be surprised what people put in there........

[Monker]

Yes, it is a BS argument. Bush was in office, Bush is accountable for HIS war. If it by some miracle had been a success, would any neo-con worhiper be giving Clinton credit for the 'plan'? Don't think so.

So, given your way of reasoning, the 10.2% unemployment rate IS Obama's fault, right?

No, it's Bush's for ignoring the economy for his entire presidency. Things tanked under BUSH, not Obama. Obama has had to do the clean up work...and has been doing the right things, IMO. Despite what Republicans believe today, by the end of his term, he'll be able to ask the 'are you better off now then you were 4yrs ago?'just as Reagan and Clinton did, he'll be reelected.

[strangegrey]

No, it's Bush's for ignoring the economy for his entire presidency. Things tanked under BUSH, not Obama. Obama has had to do the clean up work...and has been doing the right things, IMO. Despite what Republicans believe today, by the end of his term, he'll be able to ask the 'are you better off now then you were 4yrs ago?'just as Reagan and Clinton did, he'll be reelected.

Horseshit. The economy would have gone in the same direction had Al Gore been president. The economic factors that came into play during the Bush presidency would likely have been the same under a Gore presidency. Interest rates would have been driven down as a result of the tech bust, poor people would have been pushed into home ownership that they couldn't afford (probably more so) thanks to enablement of idiot finance minds in Congress like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and....the piper would have come home to roost sometime between 2007 and 2008, under Gore or Kerry....

while it's mightily convenient to say it's all Bush's fault...the fact of the matter is that I have full confidence that the two democrat alternatives would have acted not much differently....


However, here's where your post is caked in horseshit. Please take the whole "Obama's cleaning up the mess' feces, and return it right back up your rectum. Seriously....you can say that if YoMama is actually working to improve things...but the minute that fucker took office, the markets tanked even further....unemployment (above normal frictional/seasonal) practically doubled overnight...and has gotten progressively worse.

Our economy is no better off than it was 6 months ago. You think the technical fact that GDP shrinkage has been stopped is an indicator of the end of the recession? Go back to your school books and return with the formula for GDP. You'll find that even with negative growth in Consumption and Investment, that massive Government spending can give you a positive number. But it's a false number. Unemployment has gotten worse, not better over the past 3 months....

Go ahead and tell yourself it's only 10.2%. Like I said, realistically, it's more like 17%....and that's a recent development.


We're FAR worse off under YoMama than we EVER were under Hayseed.....Thankfully, that's exactly what I was expecting. By this time next year, that bleeding cvnt Pelossi won't be 2 gunshots away from the presidency.....and another 2 years from then, YoMama will go home to chicago with a legacy twice as bad as Jimmy Carter's...