How Complete Was The Fall Of Obama?

[Kathianne]

Quite. The following is a superb description of just how complete. That it's beautifully written is just a bonus.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/bare-ruined-choirs/

Something to think about though, there is a long tradition of the dominant party to follow such extraordinary control with an extraordinary bout of hubris.

Do you think this will be avoided?

[OCA]

Quite. The following is a superb description of just how complete. That it's beautifully written is just a bonus.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/bare-ruined-choirs/

Something to think about though, there is a long tradition of the dominant party to follow such extraordinary control with an extraordinary bout of hubris.

Do you think this will be avoided?

Just how steep or is there really a fall?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-highest-popularity-in-2-years-230897

[Kathianne]

Just how steep or is there really a fall?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-highest-popularity-in-2-years-230897


Obama has many that really like him, his approval ratings haven't fallen far for long. Liking a president though, doesn't always result in voting his preferences, illustrated in the last 3 election results. Indeed, an argument can be made that when Obama endorses someone, it has spelled loss.

Look at the issues through polling lens, his policies aren't popular and haven't been. People like him though.

I think I say confidently say that I'll never like Trump, I don't like his style, behavior, or his politics over the years. With that said, if he ends up pushing or his administration succeeds in legislation and policies I do favor, I'll have been glad he was elected over my opinion.

Whenever a discussion like this arises, I think of Carter. In most ways his values and ethics seem high on the morality scale, (though IMO he's an anti-semite and acted deplorably as ex-president towards his successors). Still, his administration has been considered the worst ever, until recently.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Quite. The following is a superb description of just how complete. That it's beautifully written is just a bonus.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/bare-ruined-choirs/

Something to think about though, there is a long tradition of the dominant party to follow such extraordinary control with an extraordinary bout of hubris.

Do you think this will be avoided?
Very informative article that points out much. However,OBAMA'S FALL WILL NEVER BE COMPLETE UNLESS AFTER HE IS OUT OF OFFICE HE FACES EASILY PROVEN CHARGES OF TREASON-- NOTED THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN AS THE GLOBALIST SHILL HAS THEIR PROTECTION.

Some of us see with clarity on such matters while the rest of the wold wallows in the liberal "million shades of gray" crap that begs to turn blind eyes to truth and justice...
Obama should face justice for his treason (as in being tried and convicted legally), but he never will...
And that is why the road is clear for a future obama(globalist shill) to come along and destroy this nation. -Tyr

[OCA]

Very informative article that points out much. However,OBAMA'S FALL WILL NEVER BE COMPLETE UNLESS AFTER HE IS OUT OF OFFICE HE FACES EASILY PROVEN CHARGES OF TREASON-- NOTED THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN AS THE GLOBALIST SHILL HAS THEIR PROTECTION.

Some of us see with clarity on such matters while the rest of the wold wallows in the liberal "million shades of gray" crap that begs to turn blind eyes to truth and justice...
Obama should face justice for his treason (as in being tried and convicted legally), but he never will...
And that is why the road is clear for a future obama(globalist shill) to come along and destroy this nation. -Tyr

Would you kindly name and prove these charges of treason?

The whole board simultaneously just said "why did he ask him that? Here we go again!"

[Bilgerat]

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15032249_10155012588923455_7166904529375538692_n.j pg?oh=b3c4a3772611bf8686efe6fabd9490f9&oe=5889873D

[NightTrain]

Just how steep or is there really a fall?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-highest-popularity-in-2-years-230897


Still citing pre-election polls, are we? :rolleyes:

Tsk.

[fj1200]

Just how steep or is there really a fall?

Pretty steep. One need only look at the wave of read starting before 2010 if Scott Brown in Mass was any indication.


Still citing pre-election polls, are we? :rolleyes:

Tsk.

That's not really something subject to election.

[NightTrain]

That's not really something subject to election.


If you still believe that polls were accurate with regard to politics and weren't being tampered with - especially this one published immediately before the election - then I can't help you.

I think it's abundantly clear to everyone that almost every single one were garbage. Gallup included.

The only poll, in retrospect, that had any idea of the true mood of the country was IBD/TIPP. The case could be argued that the LA Times had a handle on it, too, but those are the only ones.

[Black Diamond]

Quite. The following is a superb description of just how complete. That it's beautifully written is just a bonus.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/bare-ruined-choirs/

Something to think about though, there is a long tradition of the dominant party to follow such extraordinary control with an extraordinary bout of hubris.

Do you think this will be avoided?

Whenever Obama's policies were on the ballot but Obama wasn't, he got crushed.

~ Charles Krauthammer.

[fj1200]

If you still believe that polls were accurate with regard to politics and weren't being tampered with - especially this one published immediately before the election - then I can't help you.

I think it's abundantly clear to everyone that almost every single one were garbage. Gallup included.

The only poll, in retrospect, that had any idea of the true mood of the country was IBD/TIPP. The case could be argued that the LA Times had a handle on it, too, but those are the only ones.

I don't need any help. I'm the one who knows that a BO approval rating has nothing to do with the election. :shrug: As far as the polls none of them called it accurately because it's virtually impossible to gauge turnout. IBD and LA Times were wrong because they had trump winning the popular vote.

[NightTrain]

I don't need any help. I'm the one who knows that a BO approval rating has nothing to do with the election. :shrug:

Keep on shrugging, FJ. The polls supporting Obama and Hillary were way off, as in hard evidence of the election.


As far as the polls none of them called it accurately because it's virtually impossible to gauge turnout. IBD and LA Times were wrong because they had trump winning the popular vote.


News Flash : all your vaunted polls supposedly targeted active and 'likely' voters.

IBD and LA Times showed a likely Trump upset, where the others showed a Hillary blowout.

Continue to argue with your support of accurate polls, I'm done here. Any person that paid attention in the last week knows how incredibly wrong the thousands of other polls were.

[fj1200]

Keep on shrugging, FJ. The polls supporting Obama and Hillary were way off, as in hard evidence of the election.

I will keep shrugging, you're making something out of nothing. You made a point about before and after the election; I think the results of that poll didn't really change much. Some people still like BO, not sure why but they do.


News Flash : all your vaunted polls supposedly targeted active and 'likely' voters.

IBD and LA Times showed a likely Trump upset, where the others showed a Hillary blowout.

Continue to argue with your support of accurate polls, I'm done here. Any person that paid attention in the last week knows how incredibly wrong the thousands of other polls were.

I don't have any vaunted polls. None of them were accurate. You do know that trump lost the popular vote right?

[Black Diamond]

I will keep shrugging, you're making something out of nothing. You made a point about before and after the election; I think the results of that poll didn't really change much. Some people still like BO, not sure why but they do.



I don't have any vaunted polls. None of them were accurate. You do know that trump lost the popular vote right?
Polls in states he won were way off. Ohio Penn Florida Michigan Wisconsin and more.

Popular vote means nothing. And neither do national polls.
This election will be studied and contemplated for centuries. Assuming we have centuries.

[jimnyc]

The only poll, in retrospect, that had any idea of the true mood of the country was IBD/TIPP.

I don't remember who, but someone here on the board posted a poll or 60 from IBD and kept ranting about how they were the most accurate of all in the past few elections. I don't know who that was, but he deserves a beer for sure! :2up:

[fj1200]

Polls in states he won were way off. Ohio Penn Florida Michigan Wisconsin and more.

Popular vote means nothing. And neither do national polls.
This election will be studied and contemplated for centuries. Assuming we have centuries.

Why are we talking about election polls? People still like BO, not sure why but they do. The approval rating poll is mostly a "how's the country going poll" IMO.

[Black Diamond]

Why are we talking about election polls? People still like BO, not sure why but they do. The approval rating poll is mostly a "how's the country going poll" IMO.

Krauthammer opinion:.

They like him but not his policies. There's a disconnect there. Every time his policies/legacy are on the ballot, but he isn't, he gets crushed.

Another disconnect:. Obama's approval rating: 54%. Country going in the wrong direction: 75%

[fj1200]

Krauthammer opinion:.

They like him but not his policies. There's a disconnect there. Every time his policies/legacy are on the ballot, but he isn't, he gets crushed.

Another disconnect:. Obama's approval rating: 54%. Country going in the wrong direction: 75%

As I said, I don't know why. Those two numbers aren't necessarily the same people identifying the same problem though.

Wasn't Krauthammer persona non grata around here recently?

[Black Diamond]

As I said, I don't know why. Those two numbers aren't necessarily the same people identifying the same problem though.

Wasn't Krauthammer persona non grata around here recently?

Not by me. I enjoy his opinion pieces, even though he was Never Trump.

[jimnyc]

Wasn't Krauthammer persona non grata around here recently?

Link? I know Kath posted from him, as did I - even though I know he was predicting and wanting a Trump loss mostly. I honestly didn't see others talking him down. Do you recall who?

[fj1200]

Not by me. I enjoy his opinion pieces, even though he was Never Trump.

Me too. I thought he'd been outed as an establishment hack by some. Carry on.

[fj1200]

Link? I know Kath posted from him, as did I - even though I know he was predicting and wanting a Trump loss mostly. I honestly didn't see others talking him down. Do you recall who?

The alt-righters IIRC.

[jimnyc]

The alt-righters IIRC.

Who are they? Sounds like what you just said, "some around here". WHO? Link? And if "alt righters" are to be labeled racists by others, even more reason why such clarifications are needed.

[Kathianne]

Link? I know Kath posted from him, as did I - even though I know he was predicting and wanting a Trump loss mostly. I honestly didn't see others talking him down. Do you recall who?

I do believe it was Perianne, she wasn't content with just dismissing all of National Review.

[jimnyc]

I do believe it was Perianne, she wasn't content with just dismissing all of National Review.

That's VERY possible. I just know that while he disappointed me, I've always liked him and his writing. Would be odd if that's all he remembers, and then would indirectly make it sound as if many, or the board, made him sorta not welcome around here. Or if treated at such, should be easy to link to. I know if someone did such, and then flip flopped, I would make sure I have a linky handy to toss in the face! :laugh:

[fj1200]

Who are they? Sounds like what you just said, "some around here". WHO? Link? And if "alt righters" are to be labeled racists by others, even more reason why such clarifications are needed.

It wasn't by BD so any point I had was moot.

There's a "Farthammer" thread and he was referred to as "Kraut-hammer." I only found a couple of references with a quick search. It was less than I remembered, please accept my heart felt apologies.

[Black Diamond]

It wasn't by BD so any point I had was moot.

There's a "Farthammer" thread and he was referred to as "Kraut-hammer."

I'm half German. I need to go to my safe space now.

[Black Diamond]

It wasn't by BD so any point I had was moot.

There's a "Farthammer" thread and he was referred to as "Kraut-hammer." I only found a couple of references with a quick search. It was less than I remembered, please accept my heart felt apologies.
That sounds like Perianne

[fj1200]

I'm half German. I need to go to my safe space now.

I'll get my safety pin ready.

[jimnyc]

It wasn't by BD so any point I had was moot.

There's a "Farthammer" thread and he was referred to as "Kraut-hammer." I only found a couple of references with a quick search. It was less than I remembered, please accept my heart felt apologies.

Funny you said that. Went down for a coffee refill and remembered the "fart" lame stuff. Don't recall the second one though, but wouldn't be surprising if from the same person. At any rate, it's not like his stories are condemned by many here.

As for your sarcasm - yeah - kinda sucks when called on crap you post, doesn't it? Don't get pissy because you wrote someone and another asked for proof. And the proof proves why I asked.

[fj1200]

Funny you said that. Went down for a coffee refill and remembered the "fart" lame stuff. Don't recall the second one though, but wouldn't be surprising if from the same person. At any rate, it's not like his stories are condemned by many here.

As for your sarcasm - yeah - kinda sucks when called on crap you post, doesn't it? Don't get pissy because you wrote someone and another asked for proof. And the proof proves why I asked.

I really have no idea what you're talking about. I overstated my memory. Ain't no thing.

And it wasn't the same person. :)

[jimnyc]

I see a lot of safety pins needed here and many other places. Each and every one cracks me up. I see a bunch of idiots on facebook using the pins over their pictures, also a bunch of lame idiots. Many folks got pissy over losing and their words over the past 16 months becoming a joke and having much of it tossed in their faces. They don't like it. :)

Kinda like Obama laughing and joking about Trump, and how he'll never be president. And then he had to receive him in the white house and deal with him. Had to sting and be embarrassing a little.

[jimnyc]

I really have no idea what you're talking about. I overstated my memory. Ain't no thing.

And it wasn't the same person. :)

Well, if you want to point fingers, and are unable to backup or give links, then your comments are useless, not to mention incorrect.

[fj1200]

Well, if you want to point fingers, and are unable to backup or give links, then your comments are useless, not to mention incorrect.

There were two people. Would you really like me to post links? As I said it's far less than I recalled. My bad.

[jimnyc]

There were two people. Would you really like me to post links? As I said it's far less than I recalled. My bad.

Nope, "my bad" is sufficient. The words you used made it sound as if "the board" was against him. Then further reading made it sound as if it were "members", which can be misconstrued as the community as well. If it's less, and one not even here anymore, and it was overstated - that's good enough for me to read.

[fj1200]

Nope, "my bad" is sufficient. The words you used made it sound as if "the board" was against him. Then further reading made it sound as if it were "members", which can be misconstrued as the community as well. If it's less, and one not even here anymore, and it was overstated - that's good enough for me to read.

Considering I admitted my error and apologized back in post #26...

[jimnyc]

Considering I apologized back in post #26...

Considering I asked for a link in my first reply to you...

Can't just let shit go, even after I let it go, huh?

That was because I had asked for links - which was apparently too far above your pay grade. You're not the first person here thought to have difficulty using the search feature. You apparently made this lame comment knowing that the member who stated such isn't even here any longer. So then what, it's down to one post? And that's your post to claim that he's persona non grata here? Talk about stretching shit and making it sound worse than it is.

And now I know why I didn't get links from the get go, now why you didn't just post them from the get go.

[fj1200]

Oh geez! I was hoping not to drag the thread further off topic by posting links of people not in the thread and as you point out not here.

[jimnyc]

Oh geez! I was hoping not to drag the thread further off topic by posting links of people not in the thread and as you point out not here.

I let it go, and then you replied again, so save your shit about how you didn't want things to drag out.

And you make a lame claim - and simply posting a link proving what you're posting would have made things drag out, or further off topic? BWaahahahahahahha That's hilarious!!

Then simply don't post shit you are unwilling to backup if someone should ask then.

[OCA]

I don't remember who, but someone here on the board posted a poll or 60 from IBD and kept ranting about how they were the most accurate of all in the past few elections. I don't know who that was, but he deserves a beer for sure! :2up:

I got ya! Old English 800 right?

[jimnyc]

I got ya! Old English 800 right?

Dude, I'm lame, but not THAT lame. We have liquor store within walking distance over there! :) I'll have plain old Corona's, thank you. :) And of course some Jager bombs!!

[OCA]

The alt-righters IIRC.

Iow 9/10 of the board.

[OCA]

Dude, I'm lame, but not THAT lame. We have liquor store within walking distance over there! :) I'll have plain old Corona's, thank you. :) And of course some Jager bombs!!

You probably drink that piss they call "Iron City"

[jimnyc]

Iow 9/10 of the board.

I'll say the same - back it up. Or at least define it. Some like to "define" things and think they know better.

Throughout the majority since that term came out, most will claim it's racism. Last I saw that here was from Noir. And you?

[jimnyc]

You probably drink that piss they call "Iron City"

Owned a few when I was a kid and never saw one ever again. Never even thought of drinking it.

[OCA]

I'll say the same - back it up. Or at least define it. Some like to "define" things and think they know better.

Throughout the majority since that term came out, most will claim it's racism. Last I saw that here was from Noir. And you?

Jesus it's an alt right board 100% All one has to do is some casual reading to come to that conclusion........you would think you'd be proud and own it.

[fj1200]

Jesus it's an alt right board 100% All one has to do is some casual reading to come to that conclusion........you would think you'd be proud and own it.

No it's not.

[OCA]

Dude, I'm lame, but not THAT lame. We have liquor store within walking distance over there! :) I'll have plain old Corona's, thank you. :) And of course some Jager bombs!!

Or MD 20/20......lol

[OCA]

No it's not.

How is it not? Many members tip toe between veiled references of all the way to out and out bigotry and everything in between.

[fj1200]

How is it not? Many members tip toe between veiled references of all the way to out and out bigotry and everything in between.

Because I'm not, Kathianne is not... It's also a very tough thing to define. We had a thread on it not so long ago where it seemed to be championed.

[Kathianne]

Because I'm not, Kathianne is not... It's also a very tough thing to define. We had a thread on it not so long ago where it seemed to be championed.

I just saw your 'status' by your avatar. Made me laugh!

[jimnyc]

Jesus it's an alt right board 100% All one has to do is some casual reading to come to that conclusion........you would think you'd be proud and own it.

Again, define "alt right".

[OCA]

Because I'm not, Kathianne is not... It's also a very tough thing to define. We had a thread on it not so long ago where it seemed to be championed.

Hence the 9/10........maybe 3/4 would be more believable to you?

[fj1200]

Hence the 9/10........maybe 3/4 would be more believable to you?

As pointed out already, it needs to be defined.

[jimnyc]

If going by Wiki... I don't think really anyone at all fits into this. Some may want to say that folks reject conservatism, but that's completely false. Some folks here, for example, are willing to bend on some stances, but to say that we now reject conservatism would be silly. If folks think those of us who supported Trump in this group, so be it. I have bolded the ONLY correct thing in there. And most conservatives have had an issue with illegal immigration, and many many over the past 16 years about political correctness.

-----

The alt-right is a loose group of people with far right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in the United States.[1][2] The writings of the group are largely Internet-based and are found on websites such as 4chan and 8chan, where anonymous members create and use Internet memes to express themselves.[3][4][5] It is difficult to tell how much of what people write is serious, and how much is intended to provoke outrage.[6][7] Members of the alt-right use social media like Twitter and Breitbart News to convey their message.

Generally alt-right postings support Republican President-elect Donald Trump,[10] and oppose immigration, multiculturalism and political correctness.[2][11][12]

The alt-right has no formal ideology, although various sources have stated that white nationalism is fundamental.[1][2][7] It has also been associated with white supremacism,[3][13][14] Islamophobia,[15][16][17][18][19] antifeminism,[1][12] homophobia,[20][21][22] antisemitism,[1][2][4] ethno-nationalism,[23] right-wing populism,[7] nativism,[24] traditionalism,[25] and the neoreactionary movement.[3][25][26] 'Alt-right' is a recently coined umbrella term, with no clear criteria of membership yet agreed upon.[27] The movement has been associated with multiple ideologies from American nationalism, neo-monarchists to men's rights advocates and people who oppose mainstream conservatism.[28][29]

[Kathianne]

There's a few folks here I wonder about, one that is gone really left no doubt. Most are not racists or anti-most people groups. Some though seem to want to prove they are so 'non-PC' they occasionally come off as incivil. I for one wish people would consider the differences.

I've said before, I don't think Trump is a racist or any other type of 'anti-anything.'

He comports himself however as a bully, certainly comes off as a misogynist, and is rude. These behaviors seem to attract some people, including racists. To equate all supporters of Trump with racists in general is about as correct as the differences between being non-PC and incivil. It's more than a degree, but hard to put one's finger on. OTOH, there are racists that support him, as evidence by the 'endorsement' of the KKK. That Trump didn't denounce that in timely manner, certainly turned many folks off to him, but also attracted others, including those sick of PC.

The election is over, but one thing I've noticed, since about 2 weeks before the election, Trump stopped acting like the above. He was gracious in acceptance speech. He was gracious speaking after meeting with Obama. When interviewed by Stahl for 60 minutes, he was filmed telling anyone treating others badly in his name to STOP. CBS waited to the program to air that though they had it taped days before. Why? They aired plenty of clips to promote the program.

The only one from the left that has told their 'backers' to stop is Bernie. Tells one something.

[OCA]

Again, define "alt right".

A group of people with far right beliefs who reject mainstream conservatism.

[jimnyc]

Jesus it's an alt right board 100% All one has to do is some casual reading to come to that conclusion........you would think you'd be proud and own it.


A group of people with far right beliefs who reject mainstream conservatism.

So you used 100%. You say we ALL reject mainstream conservatism.

Be specific, name the major conservative values that we ALL have rejected.

[OCA]

If going by Wiki... I don't think really anyone at all fits into this. Some may want to say that folks reject conservatism, but that's completely false. Some folks here, for example, are willing to bend on some stances, but to say that we now reject conservatism would be silly. If folks think those of us who supported Trump in this group, so be it. I have bolded the ONLY correct thing in there. And most conservatives have had an issue with illegal immigration, and many many over the past 16 years about political correctness.

-----

The alt-right is a loose group of people with far right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in the United States.[1][2] The writings of the group are largely Internet-based and are found on websites such as 4chan and 8chan, where anonymous members create and use Internet memes to express themselves.[3][4][5] It is difficult to tell how much of what people write is serious, and how much is intended to provoke outrage.[6][7] Members of the alt-right use social media like Twitter and Breitbart News to convey their message.

Generally alt-right postings support Republican President-elect Donald Trump,[10] and oppose immigration, multiculturalism and political correctness.[2][11][12]

The alt-right has no formal ideology, although various sources have stated that white nationalism is fundamental.[1][2][7] It has also been associated with white supremacism,[3][13][14] Islamophobia,[15][16][17][18][19] antifeminism,[1][12] homophobia,[20][21][22] antisemitism,[1][2][4] ethno-nationalism,[23] right-wing populism,[7] nativism,[24] traditionalism,[25] and the neoreactionary movement.[3][25][26] 'Alt-right' is a recently coined umbrella term, with no clear criteria of membership yet agreed upon.[27] The movement has been associated with multiple ideologies from American nationalism, neo-monarchists to men's rights advocates and people who oppose mainstream conservatism.[28][29]

They reject "mainstream" conservatisn iow the establishment whom they see as not right enough.

[jimnyc]

They reject "mainstream" conservatisn iow the establishment whom they see as not right enough.

You said we reject mainstream conservatism, not leaders. Tell me which issues!!

[Kathianne]

Is now a good time and place to say that Paul Ryan was unanimously elected Speaker of the House? That's not a wholesale repudiation of mainstream conservatism.

[OCA]

So you used 100%. You say we ALL reject mainstream conservatism.

Be specific, name the major conservative values that we ALL have rejected.

Quit being obtuse......mainstream conservatism=current establishment.

[OCA]

Is now a good time and place to say that Paul Ryan was unanimously elected Speaker of the House? That's not a wholesale repudiation of mainstream conservatism.

By establishment conservatives.

[jimnyc]

Quit being obtuse......mainstream conservatism=current establishment.

I'm pretty sure most folks on the right had enough with the elites and establishment, whether they supported Trump or not.

[Kathianne]

I'm pretty sure most folks on the right had enough with the elites and establishment, whether they supported Trump or not.

Umm, yes and no. Depends on your definitions of. I don't want a Washington full of Trumps. I also don't want one full of Pelosis.

I agree with Trump and the idea of some sort of term limits, but likely would disagree on number of terms. I also agree with forcing Congress to be included in all bills they pass for the people, no exemptions for themselves and federal employees. I've often thought that would have changed the vote on Obamacare.

There should also be laws on the number of years between leaving government service and joining any lobbying groups or business involved in work that was done in Congress. I'd really love an answer to how Reid got rich over his 'government service.'

There is a need for experience and expertise. Instincts alone will not cut it.

[OCA]

You said we reject mainstream conservatism, not leaders. Tell me which issues!!

Oh i don't know bipartisanship comes to mind, keeping big gov out of personal decisions, race.

[jimnyc]

Umm, yes and no. Depends on your definitions of. I don't want a Washington full of Trumps. I also don't want one full of Pelosis.

I agree with Trump and the idea of some sort of term limits, but likely would disagree on number of terms. I also agree with forcing Congress to be included in all bills they pass for the people, no exemptions for themselves and federal employees. I've often thought that would have changed the vote on Obamacare.

There should also be laws on the number of years between leaving government service and joining any lobbying groups or business involved in work that was done in Congress. I'd really love an answer to how Reid got rich over his 'government service.'

There is a need for experience and expertise. Instincts alone will not cut it.

I was sick of the elites, those that are there forever and cause the most problems, IMO. I know we can never hit the reset button and toss every last one of them as I would like, but expressing just that, and tossing as many as we can, that's good enough for me.

I know that ALL outsiders won't work either. But perhaps having some, in some key positions, will give us different results than we have been seeing - since like forever.

But I still say drain the swamp. Open the plug and hope that many of the dodo birds get sucked in. And perhaps those that end up staying, are the good eggs, and they learn to work somewhat together.

[Kathianne]

I was sick of the elites, those that are there forever and cause the most problems, IMO. I know we can never hit the reset button and toss every last one of them as I would like, but expressing just that, and tossing as many as we can, that's good enough for me.

I know that ALL outsiders won't work either. But perhaps having some, in some key positions, will give us different results than we have been seeing - since like forever.

But I still say drain the swamp. Open the plug and hope that many of the dodo birds get sucked in. And perhaps those that end up staying, are the good eggs, and they learn to work somewhat together.

There are bad and good folks in Congress and even in the bureaucracies. IMO the missing element is reasonable attention paid by 'the people.' If your legislators aren't voting the way you want; if they are constantly raising money but not showing up for votes; if they are more interested in the press than their constituents, they need to be called on it. Most people haven't a clue.

No one can watch all of the machinations that go on regarding legislation, but they can check their representative's votes on issues of concern they hear about on the news or read about in the paper or internet. They can fire off an email or a make a phone call. Can follow it up by calling their local office and saying 'you're really concerned.' One call, email, etc., counts for over 100. Most people say nothing, but do have the same concerns. It also gives feedback to the legislators on what is important to the folks back home.

Funny thing, if you can convince 10 people to do the same, you are 'speaking' for over 1000 people-real numbers to politicians.

When speaking of 'draining the swamp' one might look in the mirror. I don't mean you personally, I mean 'all of us.'

[Drummond]

Would you kindly name and prove these charges of treason?

The whole board simultaneously just said "why did he ask him that? Here we go again!"

Getting back to the question in 'bold', above ... I'd say this ...

Obama, I believe years before acting on it, publicly announced to the world what his intentions would be towards Iraq once he first assumed Office. Having announced them, and having been voted President ... he set about doing what he said he would. Namely, his withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Such advance warning of troop withdrawals, especially so far in advance, was a great gift to terrorist forces in the area ! They knew beyond doubt that they could move IN, when American troops moved OUT. And of course, diminishing forces are weaker forces, so rendered more vulnerable.

We see the result, and the rise of ISIS in the region. They were not there, before Obama acted !!

Telling AN ENEMY what your military plans are, is obviously treasonous !! To say nothing of selling out all that American forces had fought to achieve there, suffering deaths and maimings along the way.

Obama acted with treasonous contempt for American forces .. and equally, with contempt for Western security concerns. The 'man' is a total disgrace.

[Kathianne]

Not treason:


Article 3 - The Judicial Branch. Section 3 - Treason. ... Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

[Bilgerat]

We know "Moochelle" is feeling the pain

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15094398_1220202904692781_1766674249126924384_n.jp g?oh=7542fce971a0f66b09c8a3f193b1f870&oe=58BBC43A

[Balu]

We know "Moochelle" is feeling the pain

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15094398_1220202904692781_1766674249126924384_n.jp g?oh=7542fce971a0f66b09c8a3f193b1f870&oe=58BBC43A

:clap::clap::clap:

[Drummond]

Not treason:

It surely aided America's enemies in the Middle East to have Obama publicly declare his military plans for Iraq !

Did it do terrorist forces in that region no good at all to have advance warning of when military forces ranged against them would quit the area ... and that all they had to do was survive for what limited remaining time there was, so that they could then move in, in force ??

Terrorism, if given advantages, will use those advantages against their enemies. Tie up those enemies in battles in their own backyard, and they're not instead employing their efforts in YOUR backyard ....

[OCA]

Getting back to the question in 'bold', above ... I'd say this ...

Obama, I believe years before acting on it, publicly announced to the world what his intentions would be towards Iraq once he first assumed Office. Having announced them, and having been voted President ... he set about doing what he said he would. Namely, his withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Such advance warning of troop withdrawals, especially so far in advance, was a great gift to terrorist forces in the area ! They knew beyond doubt that they could move IN, when American troops moved OUT. And of course, diminishing forces are weaker forces, so rendered more vulnerable.

We see the result, and the rise of ISIS in the region. They were not there, before Obama acted !!

Telling AN ENEMY what your military plans are, is obviously treasonous !! To say nothing of selling out all that American forces had fought to achieve there, suffering deaths and maimings along the way.

Obama acted with treasonous contempt for American forces .. and equally, with contempt for Western security concerns. The 'man' is a total disgrace.

Actually it was bush who announced that we would be withdrawing Obama just actually followed through on it but nonetheless your assertion is ludicrous. Here maybe this will help:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

[OCA]

It surely aided America's enemies in the Middle East to have Obama publicly declare his military plans for Iraq !

Did it do terrorist forces in that region no good at all to have advance warning of when military forces ranged against them would quit the area ... and that all they had to do was survive for what limited remaining time there was, so that they could then move in, in force ??

Terrorism, if given advantages, will use those advantages against their enemies. Tie up those enemies in battles in their own backyard, and they're not instead employing their efforts in YOUR backyard ....

No original invasion of Iraq in 2003 and there is no ISIS. ISIS has 2 fathers, George W Bush and Richard Cheney.......unarguable.

[Black Diamond]

Actually it was bush who announced that we would be withdrawing Obama just actually followed through on it but nonetheless your assertion is ludicrous. Here maybe this will help:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

The left swore that wasn't true when that decision was still sexy.

[fj1200]

They reject "mainstream" conservatisn iow the establishment whom they see as not right enough.

I think it's more accurate to say that they are more left than right in relation to conservatism.