Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2020 15:54:57 GMT -5
I guess you forgot about the guy with the extra judicial kill lists, going after whistle blowers, domestic spying, attacking a country without congressional approval, and caging children. What was his name again? No, I mentioned Bush and Trump. Obama did those things, but those two did more and worse, which means that, bad as he was, he was less bad than them. Is that you hst2?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2020 15:58:17 GMT -5
Carter is arguably the worst President in US history. Clinton was not to be trusted and Obama was as divisive as Trump. Carter was at least well-meaning. And as soon as 43 was elected he wasn't the worst. Then the Pubs doubled down on that with Trump. And even in terms of honesty Carter wasn't worse than Nixon. Nor was Clinton, although his personal life didn't bear close scrutiny and he probably peddled influence. But still not worse than being impeached. Trump has been. Nixon would have been. Was Obama as divisive as Trump? That's hard to say. The TEA Party arose during his presidency, and those nuts had a great deal to do with divisiveness. Clinton was impeached. The Tea Party rose in response to the arrival of a charming, persuasive politician with no executive experience, no leadership experience and who immediately made clear Republicans could ride along, but only in the back. Note; I'm not defending Nixon, or Bush and I'm not sure Trump is even minimally defensible, but the three (D) Presidents I mentioned were empty suits as well.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jan 16, 2020 15:59:53 GMT -5
Obama was divisive because he was black and a lot of white people didn't like that. They even lied and made up stories about how he was born in Kenya.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2020 16:03:28 GMT -5
Obama was divisive because he was black and a lot of white people didn't like that. They even lied and made up stories about how he was born in Kenya. Self-defense divisiveness - that's new!
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Jan 16, 2020 16:51:09 GMT -5
Been saying this for years. The GOP depends and exploits ignorance and superstition. What else explains the disconnect between reality and Trump supporters? Hate to say it zen the dems do their fair share of exploitation by depending on people that expect things to be handed to them, that if you are a certain group laws shouldn't apply or be minimized and that regardless of your ax you want to grind that you are correct and it is NOT your fault. Face it the GOP and the Dems are different sides of the same coin. That requires equating the Olympics with the Special Olympics when you say they all do it.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Jan 16, 2020 17:02:04 GMT -5
Carter is arguably the worst President in US history. Clinton was not to be trusted and Obama was as divisive as Trump. Carter was at least well-meaning. And as soon as 43 was elected he wasn't the worst. Then the Pubs doubled down on that with Trump. And even in terms of honesty Carter wasn't worse than Nixon. Nor was Clinton, although his personal life didn't bear close scrutiny and he probably peddled influence. But still not worse than being impeached. Trump has been. Nixon would have been. Was Obama as divisive as Trump? That's hard to say. The TEA Party arose during his presidency, and those nuts had a great deal to do with divisiveness. Guns and butter had finally caught up with the Treasury and when the wheel of fortune stopped it stopped during Carter. It was unheard of to run a gov strictly on credit so it took a republican (Reagan) to say debt was for chumps. It's morning in America. David Stockman his economics advisor called it Voodoo Economics and predicted dark days ahead. Now we are 23 Trillion in debt, an amount that were it in miles would be better tabulated in Light Years (6T = 1 LY). Carter has made up for his other shortcomings in the intervening years. I can't be hard on the guy as his motives were good. Worst prez before Trump? It's a tie between Bush and Jefferson Davis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2020 17:15:27 GMT -5
Carter was at least well-meaning. And as soon as 43 was elected he wasn't the worst. Then the Pubs doubled down on that with Trump. And even in terms of honesty Carter wasn't worse than Nixon. Nor was Clinton, although his personal life didn't bear close scrutiny and he probably peddled influence. But still not worse than being impeached. Trump has been. Nixon would have been. Was Obama as divisive as Trump? That's hard to say. The TEA Party arose during his presidency, and those nuts had a great deal to do with divisiveness. Guns and butter had finally caught up with the Treasury and when the wheel of fortune stopped it stopped during Carter. It was unheard of to run a gov strictly on credit so it took a republican (Reagan) to say debt was for chumps. It's morning in America. David Stockman his economics advisor called it Voodoo Economics and predicted dark days ahead. Now we are 23 Trillion in debt, an amount that were it in miles would be better tabulated in Light Years (6T = 1 LY). Carter has made up for his other shortcomings in the intervening years. I can't be hard on the guy as his motives were good. Worst prez before Trump? It's a tie between Bush and Jefferson Davis. Carter was a disaster, over his head from the second he completed his oath. Perhaps our best ex-President, but an unmitigated disaster in office. Funny thing was, he was too honest to be there.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 16, 2020 17:33:11 GMT -5
No, I mentioned Bush and Trump. Obama did those things, but those two did more and worse, which means that, bad as he was, he was less bad than them. Is that you hst2? No. I haven't heard from him in a few years now.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 16, 2020 17:34:44 GMT -5
Self-defense divisiveness - that's new! No. HE wasn't the cause of the divisiveness was the point. Which I am sure you saw.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 16, 2020 17:37:14 GMT -5
Carter was a disaster, over his head from the second he completed his oath. Perhaps our best ex-President, but an unmitigated disaster in office. Funny thing was, he was too honest to be there. I agree with this assessment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2020 17:38:57 GMT -5
Self-defense divisiveness - that's new! No. HE wasn't the cause of the divisiveness was the point. Which I am sure you saw. You're right. He wasn't the cause of the divisiveness; his words and actions were.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2020 17:39:39 GMT -5
Carter was a disaster, over his head from the second he completed his oath. Perhaps our best ex-President, but an unmitigated disaster in office. Funny thing was, he was too honest to be there. I agree with this assessment. Downright scary event right here. 😃
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 16, 2020 17:42:48 GMT -5
You're right. He wasn't the cause of the divisiveness; his words and actions were. There were a lot of people in this country who were never going to give him a chance because they couldn't look past his skin color. The same thing would happen if a woman got elected, except then of course it would be her gender. And, whether you are willing to admit it or not, most of them are Republicans. They aren't a tolerant crowd over there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2020 17:56:35 GMT -5
You're right. He wasn't the cause of the divisiveness; his words and actions were. There were a lot of people in this country who were never going to give him a chance because they couldn't look past his skin color. The same thing would happen if a woman got elected, except then of course it would be her gender. And, whether you are willing to admit it or not, most of them are Republicans. They aren't a tolerant crowd over there. And he made sure of it. Everything he did created division. Do you think he chose the phrase about Republicans riding in the back of the bus by accident? Please. He played into every fear he could and yes, many jumped to the bait. It may well be the same for the first female President. Klobuchar may be able to pull it off, but Warren? Hell, no.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 16, 2020 22:38:50 GMT -5
There were a lot of people in this country who were never going to give him a chance because they couldn't look past his skin color. The same thing would happen if a woman got elected, except then of course it would be her gender. And, whether you are willing to admit it or not, most of them are Republicans. They aren't a tolerant crowd over there. And he made sure of it. Everything he did created division. Do you think he chose the phrase about Republicans riding in the back of the bus by accident? Please. He played into every fear he could and yes, many jumped to the bait. It may well be the same for the first female President. Klobuchar may be able to pull it off, but Warren? Hell, no. Don't blame all the division on Obama, MOTR. On the night he won the election in 2008, a group of Republicans met to start planning how to oppose Obama at every step. He didn't have to be divisive -- the Republicans were already doing it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2020 6:06:39 GMT -5
And he made sure of it. Everything he did created division. Do you think he chose the phrase about Republicans riding in the back of the bus by accident? Please. He played into every fear he could and yes, many jumped to the bait. It may well be the same for the first female President. Klobuchar may be able to pull it off, but Warren? Hell, no. Don't blame all the division on Obama, MOTR. On the night he won the election in 2008, a group of Republicans met to start planning how to oppose Obama at every step. He didn't have to be divisive -- the Republicans were already doing it. All of it? Absolutely not. Is he faultless, as many seek to portray him? Absolutely not.
I don't think much more of Obama than I do Trump. Obama was far more polished, far more subtle, and clearly, a good dad and husband, but he had no interest in working to bring this nation together. Obama was interested in his legacy and that's it, and I firmly believe his legacy is going to end up being Donald Trump.
|
|
|
Post by ivanbalt on Jan 17, 2020 6:27:09 GMT -5
Carter was at least well-meaning. And as soon as 43 was elected he wasn't the worst. Then the Pubs doubled down on that with Trump. And even in terms of honesty Carter wasn't worse than Nixon. Nor was Clinton, although his personal life didn't bear close scrutiny and he probably peddled influence. But still not worse than being impeached. Trump has been. Nixon would have been. Was Obama as divisive as Trump? That's hard to say. The TEA Party arose during his presidency, and those nuts had a great deal to do with divisiveness. Clinton was impeached. The Tea Party rose in response to the arrival of a charming, persuasive politician with no executive experience, no leadership experience and who immediately made clear Republicans could ride along, but only in the back. Note; I'm not defending Nixon, or Bush and I'm not sure Trump is even minimally defensible, but the three (D) Presidents I mentioned were empty suits as well. That's some nice revisionist history of the Tea Party. Considering their support of Trump and no post-Obama protests against things like massive deficits or subsidizing farmers kind of sheds light on what they were actually about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2020 6:37:49 GMT -5
Clinton was impeached. The Tea Party rose in response to the arrival of a charming, persuasive politician with no executive experience, no leadership experience and who immediately made clear Republicans could ride along, but only in the back. Note; I'm not defending Nixon, or Bush and I'm not sure Trump is even minimally defensible, but the three (D) Presidents I mentioned were empty suits as well. That's some nice revisionist history of the Tea Party. Considering their support of Trump and no post-Obama protests against things like massive deficits or subsidizing farmers kind of sheds light on what they were actually about. Only in your imagination.
|
|
|
Post by ivanbalt on Jan 17, 2020 6:50:04 GMT -5
That's some nice revisionist history of the Tea Party. Considering their support of Trump and no post-Obama protests against things like massive deficits or subsidizing farmers kind of sheds light on what they were actually about. Only in your imagination. Why do they no longer care about deficits or debt?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2020 7:08:03 GMT -5
Only in your imagination. Why do they no longer care about deficits or debt? Because they are making more money that they ever have.
|
|
|
Post by ivanbalt on Jan 17, 2020 7:14:54 GMT -5
Why do they no longer care about deficits or debt? Because they are making more money that they ever have. Yeah, I'm sure that's it.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jan 17, 2020 8:56:12 GMT -5
Don't blame all the division on Obama, MOTR. On the night he won the election in 2008, a group of Republicans met to start planning how to oppose Obama at every step. He didn't have to be divisive -- the Republicans were already doing it. All of it? Absolutely not. Is he faultless, as many seek to portray him? Absolutely not. I don't think much more of Obama than I do Trump. Obama was far more polished, far more subtle, and clearly, a good dad and husband, but he had no interest in working to bring this nation together. Obama was interested in his legacy and that's it, and I firmly believe his legacy is going to end up being Donald Trump.
Well Obama was never impeached so at least he's got that going.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2020 8:57:08 GMT -5
All of it? Absolutely not. Is he faultless, as many seek to portray him? Absolutely not. I don't think much more of Obama than I do Trump. Obama was far more polished, far more subtle, and clearly, a good dad and husband, but he had no interest in working to bring this nation together. Obama was interested in his legacy and that's it, and I firmly believe his legacy is going to end up being Donald Trump.
Well Obama was never impeached so at least he's got that going. True.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 17, 2020 8:57:31 GMT -5
All of it? Absolutely not. Is he faultless, as many seek to portray him? Absolutely not. I don't think much more of Obama than I do Trump. Obama was far more polished, far more subtle, and clearly, a good dad and husband, but he had no interest in working to bring this nation together. Obama was interested in his legacy and that's it, and I firmly believe his legacy is going to end up being Donald Trump.
Well Obama was never impeached so at least he's got that going. Trump is likely going to be the first president re-elected after impeachment. A sensible opposition would understand that as a pretty severe rebuke.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2020 9:03:12 GMT -5
Well Obama was never impeached so at least he's got that going. True. A blast from the past: sourceIt is okay when a democrat does it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2020 9:06:14 GMT -5
A blast from the past: sourceIt is okay when a democrat does it. Forgot all about that little escapade. I must be getting old. And for someone who walked away from his post in a combat zone. SMH.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jan 17, 2020 9:09:11 GMT -5
Well Obama was never impeached so at least he's got that going. Trump is likely going to be the first president re-elected after impeachment. A sensible opposition would understand that as a pretty severe rebuke. That will say more about the moral bankruptcy of those who'd vote for Trump after 4 divisive, chaotic and corrupt years than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 17, 2020 9:14:17 GMT -5
Trump is likely going to be the first president re-elected after impeachment. A sensible opposition would understand that as a pretty severe rebuke. That will say more about the moral bankruptcy of those who'd vote for Trump after 4 divisive, chaotic and corrupt years than anything else. The moral bankruptcy is clearly on the other side.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2020 9:14:58 GMT -5
Trump is likely going to be the first president re-elected after impeachment. A sensible opposition would understand that as a pretty severe rebuke. That will say more about the moral bankruptcy of those who'd vote for Trump after 4 divisive, chaotic and corrupt years than anything else. I love it when the left talks about moral bankruptcy.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jan 17, 2020 9:15:11 GMT -5
A blast from the past: sourceIt is okay when a democrat does it. Forgot all about that little escapade. I must be getting old. And for someone who walked away from his post in a combat zone. SMH. I do believe the US should have tried to retrieve him and I do believe he should have served some jail time but I don't agree with the decision to trade 5 Taliban prisoners to get him back. That is a mark on Obama's legacy for sure. However, if this occurred under Trump's watch, he would have allowed Bergdahl to be tortured and killed, since Trump has said as much in the past and repeatedly called for Bergdahl's death. Trump also lied about US soldiers being killed searching for Bergdahl. So...
|
|