President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[JBlake]

She's a woman (or so she says. Which, if we can just choose which gender we want to "identify" with, what does it matter?
It's her turn.
She was Secretary of State
She's a woman
She was a US Senator
It's her turn
She was a First Lady
She's a woman
She was on the board of WalMart
It's her turn
She's an attorney
She's a woman
She's a grandmother
It's her turn
She has stuck with Bill for 40 years
She's a woman

Stinky had less and still won.

As for The Hildahag and her "I'm With Stupid" campaign, sounds like all the corruption and deception is starting to catch up with her. I compare only a very few to the likings of a batch of runny dogshit. Hildahag is right up there on the list.

[Boomchild]

Not a good day for Hillary. So much for the "she got permission to use a private email server".

State Dept. inspector general report sharply criticizes Clinton’s email practices

The State Department’s independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton’s email practices while running the department, concluding that she failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have given its blessing because of the “security risks in doing so.”

The inspector general, in a long awaited review obtained Wednesday by The Washington Post in advance of its publication, found that Clinton’s use of private email for public business was “not an appropriate method” of preserving documents and that her practices failed to comply with department policies meant to ensure federal record laws are followed.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/state- ... li=BBnb7Kz

[The_Noble_Cause]

Not a good day for Hillary. So much for the "she got permission to use a private email server".

State Dept. inspector general report sharply criticizes Clinton’s email practices

The State Department’s independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton’s email practices while running the department, concluding that she failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have given its blessing because of the “security risks in doing so.”

The inspector general, in a long awaited review obtained Wednesday by The Washington Post in advance of its publication, found that Clinton’s use of private email for public business was “not an appropriate method” of preserving documents and that her practices failed to comply with department policies meant to ensure federal record laws are followed.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/state- ... li=BBnb7Kz

I was speaking to a guy at the gym the other day. When the conversation turned to Hillary's sever issues, he said "well, Colin Powell did it too." A lot of misinformation out there. Anybody who has taken a look into this knows Hillary's really in trouble here.

[Boomchild]

I was speaking to a guy at the gym the other day. When the conversation turned to Hillary's sever issues, he said "well, Colin Powell did it too." A lot of misinformation out there. Anybody who has taken a look into this knows Hillary's really in trouble here.

That is such a lame rebuttal. IF he did, how does that excuse Hillary's actions. It would just indicate they are both guilty and should be subject to the same repercussions.

[tj]

I was speaking to a guy at the gym the other day. When the conversation turned to Hillary's sever issues, he said "well, Colin Powell did it too." A lot of misinformation out there. Anybody who has taken a look into this knows Hillary's really in trouble here.

That is such a lame rebuttal. IF he did, how does that excuse Hillary's actions. It would just indicate they are both guilty and should be subject to the same repercussions.

Powell may have used a personal account for work, but he did not set up his own server in a closet of his house and then attempt to thwart an investigation into it. And he isn't running for President.

[Boomchild]

Powell may have used a personal account for work, but he did not set up his own server in a closet of his house and then attempt to thwart an investigation into it. And he isn't running for President.

It's just spin that Hillary's campaign team is using to try and justify her actions. I watched one of her spoke persons spinning like mad on this.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Obviously, there is no comparison between Powell and Crooked Hillary. Hillary supporters are just low information dipshits. The dumbest people I know are Hillary supporters. The Inspector General report today pretty much confirms she broke the rules. Wait for the FBI to put it more bluntly: she's guilty as HELL!!!!!!

[tj]

Obviously, there is no comparison between Powell and Crooked Hillary. Hillary supporters are just low information dipshits. The dumbest people I know are Hillary supporters. The Inspector General report today pretty much confirms she broke the rules. Wait for the FBI to put it more bluntly: she's guilty as HELL!!!!!!

She will lose California to Bernie shortly and then it will really break loose. I won't be surprised if the Democratic conventions ends up being contested, like people 60 days ago were predicting for the Republicans, and Crazy Uncle Joe Biden parachutes in as the nominee to "save" the party.

[Monker]

Obviously, there is no comparison between Powell and Crooked Hillary. Hillary supporters are just low information dipshits. The dumbest people I know are Hillary supporters. The Inspector General report today pretty much confirms she broke the rules. Wait for the FBI to put it more bluntly: she's guilty as HELL!!!!!!

She will lose California to Bernie shortly and then it will really break loose. I won't be surprised if the Democratic conventions ends up being contested, like people 60 days ago were predicting for the Republicans, and Crazy Uncle Joe Biden parachutes in as the nominee to "save" the party.

It doesn't make any difference who wins the rest of the primaries. Clinton has already won the nomination. There is no math that allows Sanders to win. There will be no contested election.

Sanders lost. He lost a couple months ago, really.

As for Republicans....The chairman of the convention has not even come out to endorse him. MANY prominent governors and congressmen will not endorse Trump....and refuse the VP bid before even being considered. This isn't like the Democrats where Sanders is playing to get influence over the convention...this is a true party revolt against their own candidate. Even some big donors are refusing to back Trump. Since they waited too long to really establish a third party candidate, IMO, a large portion of Republicans are going to sit out this election because Trump is even more like a liberal Democrat than Clinton is and he doesn't represent who they want in a Republican President.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Sanders lost. He lost a couple months ago, really.

He is still winning primaries. And unlike your girl, the criminal, Bernie is not swimming in dirty money. Even if he loses, he won. Meanwhile, Hillary can win and still end up printing license plates and sharing a cell with a Rosie O'Donnell lookalike.

[tj]

It doesn't make any difference who wins the rest of the primaries. Clinton has already won the nomination. There is no math that allows Sanders to win. There will be no contested election.

Sanders lost. He lost a couple months ago, really.

As for Republicans....The chairman of the convention has not even come out to endorse him. MANY prominent governors and congressmen will not endorse Trump....and refuse the VP bid before even being considered. This isn't like the Democrats where Sanders is playing to get influence over the convention...this is a true party revolt against their own candidate. Even some big donors are refusing to back Trump. Since they waited too long to really establish a third party candidate, IMO, a large portion of Republicans are going to sit out this election because Trump is even more like a liberal Democrat than Clinton is and he doesn't represent who they want in a Republican President.

I think that a combination of Sanders' supporters' discord and Hilary's email issues will cause a lot of mayhem. I won't be surprised to see a lot of talk encouraging her to remove herself from consideration and give Biden a chance to unify the party.

As far as Republicans, it is common tactic in politics (and college football coaching searches) to announce that you are removing yourself from consideration. Usually, that is when you know that aren't being considered and done so that it looks like you turned them down, instead of the other way around.

I agree that a lot of Republicans will sit this out. Many did with Romney in 2012 as well. Anything short of supporting the nominee is support of Hilary. The Republicans who don't like Trump wouldn't support a 3rd party candidate who could actually win. They don't think he is conservative enough, and anyone they would come up with - even if they had the time to pull it off - would be to the right of Hilary and Trump. Too few of the independents or Republican centrists who support Trump would peel off for a more conservative candidate, and certainly none of the Bernie or Hilary supporters would join in someone so far right.

Which leaves Trump v. Hilary. If you are a Bernie supporter and sit it out, you risk handing it to Trump. If you are a nevertrump person and sit it out, you risk Hilary. Either way, a poor choice IMO. The pitfalls of a two party system controlled by special interests on both sides.

[tj]

E Mail Gate just crippled the Clinton Express.

http://observer.com/2016/05/game-over-e ... n-express/

"Damningly, while several former secretaries of state cooperated with the IG in this important investigation, Ms. Clinton refused to."

She's toast. And deserves to be.

[tj]

Sanders lost. He lost a couple months ago, really.

He is still winning primaries. And unlike your girl, the criminal, Bernie is not swimming in dirty money. Even if he loses, he won. Meanwhile, Hillary can win and still end up printing license plates and sharing a cell with a Rosie O'Donnell lookalike.

Winning is nothing if it costs you everything. And she is on the brink of losing it all due to this email thing.

[Boomchild]

Well with either Hillary or Biden running against Trump it will make it entertaining.

[tj]

Well with either Hillary or Biden running against Trump it will make it entertaining.

I think that Biden would pull a lot of Republican support because of his years of working with them in the Senate. He's not nearly as polarizing as Hilary. A lot of people would choose him over Trump.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I agree that a lot of Republicans will sit this out. Many did with Romney in 2012 as well.

Yes, but Trump is bringing in Reagan Democrats and other voters that have not voted GOP in a long time (if ever). Romney did not expand the base or energize it.

[tj]

I agree that a lot of Republicans will sit this out. Many did with Romney in 2012 as well.

Yes, but Trump is bringing in Reagan Democrats and other voters that have not voted GOP in a long time (if ever). Romney did not expand the base or energize it.

Good point. I don't picture many of those people voting for Bernie, most likely not for Hilary, and wonder how many actually even voted for O. I know that in Oklahoma, O didn't win a single county and it was a solid Democrat state until the last 20 years or so.

[The_Noble_Cause]

This is a good greatest hits of Hillary's lies.
You'll notice, many of the lies she uses are the same excuses Monker used to defend her server woes ("she had permission" "all the laws came after the fact").
A total coincidence, I'm sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkJE0U8Qby4

[tj]

This is a good greatest hits of Hillary's lies.
You'll notice, many of the lies she uses are the same excuses Monker used to defend her server woes ("she had permission" "all the laws came after the fact").
A total coincidence, I'm sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkJE0U8Qby4

Not defending Monker, he is plenty capable of doing that himself, but I understand that when you believe in someone you want to believe what they say. Hilary has a long history of being harrassed by Republicans, so if you don't like Republicans it is conceivable that you would believe Hilary. I think that all of us, want to believe that the people we support are worthy of that.

She has, however, earned the right by her behavior to be investigated time and again by Republicans - and now Obama's Democrat DOJ and State Dept. Inspector General - by not being forthcoming and repeatedly misleading people. What's the saying, fool me once..

It's funny to me that she was fired from the Watergate committed investigating Nixon, and now her undoing will be for attempting to hide something.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Not defending Monker, he is plenty capable of doing that himself, but I understand that when you believe in someone you want to believe what they say.

That is cult of personality bullshit. Either you care about facts or you don't.

[tj]

Not defending Monker, he is plenty capable of doing that himself, but I understand that when you believe in someone you want to believe what they say.

That is cult of personality bullshit. Either you care about facts or you don't.

It's not that simple. What are the "facts"? According to Hilary and her supporters, they are one thing. According to the State Dept. IG, they are another. Bush had "facts" when he invaded Iraq. Turned out to be way less than accurate. Was it deception or just poor intelligence? Depends on who you ask. Was Hilary's server and its aftermath so far deception or just doing what everyone else does? Depends on who you ask.

The facts are coming in against Hilary and they don't match up with her story (or stories) about it. As it becomes more clear that this isn't just another Republican witch hunt, and there have been plenty of those, I think that most of her support will peel off, leaving the cult of personality people supporting her. But her people don't want to just give up based on Republican hearsay.

[The_Noble_Cause]

It's not that simple. What are the "facts"? According to Hilary and her supporters, they are one thing. According to the State Dept. IG, they are another.

The IG acts like an official auditor or ombudsman to determine what those facts are. The IG has turned in its report. What Hillary claims she did or didn't do is irrelevant. Who cares? She is under a cloud of suspicion directly because of her actions. Since when is the defendant in a position of neutral fact-finder?

Bush had "facts" when he invaded Iraq. Turned out to be way less than accurate. Was it deception or just poor intelligence? Depends on who you ask.

Some news sources like McClatchy, were right on the WMDS. Others, like Judith Miller, were fed intelligence by the administration, and wrong. In both cases, partisans are going to believe whatever they want to believe. Trump has won his party's nomination making fun of the Bush legacy, including the Iraq War. So clearly the country has reached some sort of consensus about it being a shitty idea. It's no longer just Code Pink, Michael Moore, or the "liberal fringe."

[tj]

It's not that simple. What are the "facts"? According to Hilary and her supporters, they are one thing. According to the State Dept. IG, they are another.

The IG acts like an official auditor or ombudsman to determine what those facts are. The IG has turned in its report. What Hillary claims she did or didn't do is irrelevant. Who cares? She is under a cloud of suspicion directly because of her actions. Since when is the defendant in a position of neutral fact-finder?

Bush had "facts" when he invaded Iraq. Turned out to be way less than accurate. Was it deception or just poor intelligence? Depends on who you ask.

Some news sources like McClatchy, were right on the WMDS. Others, like Judith Miller, were fed intelligence by the administration, and wrong. In both cases, partisans are going to believe whatever they want to believe. Trump has won his party's nomination making fun of the Bush legacy, including the Iraq War. So clearly the country has reached some sort of consensus about it being a shitty idea. It's no longer just Code Pink, Michael Moore, or the "liberal fringe."

I don't disagree with you. Just having trouble finding the right words tonight.

[tj]

Obama is such a disgraceful asshole.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6107/pres ... gn=dwbrand

Harry Truman anticipated this. Here's what he had to say: "That bomb caused the Japanese to surrender, and it stopped the war. I don’t care what the crybabies say now, because they didn’t have to make the decision."

Obama isn't even worthy of carrying Harry Truman's jock strap. He has never and will never speak for me or a majority of Americans. His legacy will be one of kowtowing, cowardice, and misapplied apologies. Meanwhile, our enemies grow stronger.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Obama is such a disgraceful asshole.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6107/pres ... gn=dwbrand

Harry Truman anticipated this. Here's what he had to say: "That bomb caused the Japanese to surrender, and it stopped the war. I don’t care what the crybabies say now, because they didn’t have to make the decision."

Obama isn't even worthy of carrying Harry Truman's jock strap. He has never and will never speak for me or a majority of Americans. His legacy will be one of kowtowing, cowardice, and misapplied apologies. Meanwhile, our enemies grow stronger.

Why would you expect the president who ordered the bombing to be telling the truth? Did the president tell the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin? How about the sinking of the Lusitania? Presidents lie. Time to wake up.

[tj]

Obama is such a disgraceful asshole.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6107/pres ... gn=dwbrand

Harry Truman anticipated this. Here's what he had to say: "That bomb caused the Japanese to surrender, and it stopped the war. I don’t care what the crybabies say now, because they didn’t have to make the decision."

Obama isn't even worthy of carrying Harry Truman's jock strap. He has never and will never speak for me or a majority of Americans. His legacy will be one of kowtowing, cowardice, and misapplied apologies. Meanwhile, our enemies grow stronger.

Why would you expect the president who ordered the bombing to be telling the truth? Did the president tell the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin? How about the sinking of the Lusitania? Presidents lie. Time to wake up.

I missed something. What's Truman hiding?

[The_Noble_Cause]

I missed something. What's Truman hiding?

It's long been held as an article of faith by leftists and conspiratorial-minded folks that Truman dropped the bomb to stop Soviet expansion. Is it true? I don't know. I wouldn't rule anything out.

"The Japanese were already defeated..and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - President Eisenhower

[The_Noble_Cause]

Behold GOP policies in action!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... ansas.html

[Monker]

I agree that a lot of Republicans will sit this out. Many did with Romney in 2012 as well.

Yes, but Trump is bringing in Reagan Democrats and other voters that have not voted GOP in a long time (if ever). Romney did not expand the base or energize it.

According to Politico, this is a myth that Trump is spreading with absolutely no real data to back him up.

Politico took the actual data from the primaries and caucuses and found the reason for such high turn-out was REPUBLICANS who normally do not vote in the primaries voted this time. Yes, there are some Independents and Democrats...but the number is no where near what Trump and people like you believe, and it won't help him much in November.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ata-213897

[tj]

I missed something. What's Truman hiding?

It's long been held as an article of faith by leftists and conspiratorial-minded folks that Truman dropped the bomb to stop Soviet expansion. Is it true? I don't know. I wouldn't rule anything out.

"The Japanese were already defeated..and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - President Eisenhower

Facts again. It seems to depend where you stand on the issue and/or the perspective you have (not you specifically, just anyone making a judgement). Eyewitnesses are some of the worst people to ask what happened about things. Two sides of the same coin show completely different pictures, but both are correct.

I would be surprised if Truman didn't imagine the benefit in stopping Soviet expansion by dropping the bomb. It didn't stop them from taking over all of Eastern Europe and helping the Communists in China, though.

Eisenhower was elected 7 years after the bomb was dropped, so plenty of time to revise and/or get more information about the situation than Truman might have had at the time. Who knows?