The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Did President Obama Say "the Election Proved that Democracy Is Pretty Far Down on People's Priority List"
From a recent Tweet:
But actually, here's what he says (or you can read the very similar version in Obama's Medium post):
I should tell you that when I mentioned to a few friends that our foundation would be hosting a forum on democracy and pluralism, I got more than a few groans and eye-rolls. And it's understandable; after all, here in the United States we have just been through a fierce, hard-fought election, and it's fair to say that it did not turn out as they hoped. And for them, talk of bridging our differences when the country and the world seem so bitterly divided felt like an academic exercise. It felt far-fetched, even naïve, especially since, as far as they were concerned, the election proved that democracy is pretty far down on people's priority list. And I understood their skepticism; maybe you had a conversation with a friend that felt the same way. But as a citizen and part of a foundation that believes deeply in the promise of democracy—not only to recognize the dignity and the worth of every individual, but to produce freer, and fairer, and more just societies—I can't think of a better time to talk about it.
Obama is characterizing what some people believe ("as far as they were concerned"), not stating it as his own message. Indeed, he's expressing some disagreement with those people, at least as to the value of discussing democracy now. Perhaps some might suspect that he actually does agree that "democracy is pretty far down on people's priority interest." But quoting that phrase without Obama's "as far as they were concerned" strikes me as not quite right.
Here, by the way, is another passage from the speech that I'm glad Obama included, and that I think more people, on the Left, Right, and otherwise should bear in mind:
[T]he concept of pluralism should, and is actually familiar to all of us. It means that in a democracy, we all have to find a way to live alongside individuals and groups who are different than us. So we commit to a system of rules and habits that help us peacefully resolve our disputes; we try to cultivate habits — those practices that encourage us not just to tolerate each other but also — every so often — join together in collective action. The pluralist ideal is what allows a Christian church and Muslim mosque to sit side by side on the same city block — and then maybe agree to share a parking lot. It's what keeps you from pulling down a sign in your neighbor's yard supporting a cause you find completely irritating, and it keeps him from doing the same to you; it's what encourages you to team up with a co-worker on a project and get the job done despite the fact that the two of you disagree on abortion, gun ownership, and the merits of Taylor Swift versus Beyoncé.
I read the rest of the speech, and there are of course parts that I didn't agree with. But on balance I think it teaches a pretty healthy attitude towards democracy and dealing with people who disagree with you.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Just for the record, Obama lies.
If you like your plan, you may keep your plan.
Off-Gone-E-Ston is the "Good" War!!!! it'll be over in 3 months!
...and people died.
All politicians lie. Obama lied with far less frequency than Trump, though you cultists don't seem to see this.
Also, it's an ad hominem response.
Hmm? "cultists" nothing ad hominem there SRG2. Obama lied with far less frequency? Who many times did he say if you like your plan, you can keep your plan? I lost count myself but good to know you were keeping count.
But, as to the democrat politicians in Bucks county PA at least, I'll concede that they were not lying when they said they would violate the law to get a Democrat elected.
...and don't forget that red line.
Why are you lot such moral cowards? Why are you too gutless to say, "yeah. I know Trump lies far more than any other politician, but I don't care", rather than pretend that you find lying so bad?
Simple, because he doesn't at least on things that matter.
The cult is strong with this one.
"...it's an ad hominem response." I think I recall seeing that somewhere, just can't seem to recall. Do you happen to know SRG2?
Yes. Evidently you don't actually understand what "ad hominem" means. I am expressing my opinion concerning Mr. Bumble's response. I did not argue that he must be wrong because he is a cultist.
I mean, he is cultist, and a domain-specific cretin who will lie in the service of the cult, just as you will do, though his dishonesty is minor and almost defensible on the grounds of general ignorance and stupidity, unlike the malignant dishonesty of your posts, but that was not an argument against his post.
What a pompous ass hat you are.
Hardly think 49.9% of the electorate constitutes a cult.
And you double down on stupid by making the same ad hominem attack. My advice is that you stop now.
What a pompous ass hat you are.
Says the man whose very handle is a byword for "pompous ass".
Hardly think 49.9% of the electorate constitutes a cult
It doesn't. Not everyone who voted for Trump is a cultist. Those who defend him in the face of all reason, different matter. .You are a cultist.
And you double down on stupid by making the same ad hominem attack. My advice is that you stop now.
You may insult me all you like, and you may provide as much advice as you like but that does not change my correct usage of ad hominem, nor your incorrect one.
I will agree Trump said a whole lot of things that were not true. That doesn't make them lies. I distinctly remember his "COVID will be over by summer" proclamation as being fact-checked a lie. Unless you believe Trump can can actually foretell the future, such a statement is aspirational--not a statement of fact. And in cases of "my crowd was bigger" it is worse than a lie in my book. He simply refused to believe, or even comprehend, the facts in front of him. Still doesn't mean he "lied." I truly believe Trump thought his inauguration crowd was larger and MSM fudged the numbers and released photos without context (that photo was taken 6hrs before it started).
My point is that unless you have evidence of intent to deceive, calling his statements lies is tool the left uses without regard to actual definitions of words. They are much more careful when dealing with the left. According to NBC (a right wing bastion of disinformation) Biden was contemplating a pardon for Hunter since his conviction in June. Is that lie we will see four Pinocchios being assigned?
Either Trump lied about the 2020 election being stolen from him or he was delusional. Either way, his conduct was a threat to democracy.
Yeah, there can not possibly be a circumstance where judges and governors rewrote state constitutions to give emergency powers resulting in Biden, who hid in his basement, getting more votes than any other candidate in American history. He was just that good of a candidate!!
What I know is there were several blue state Supreme Courts and governors who changed elections laws. Some did it perfectly legal, and some just threw shit against the wall to see what the could get away with. SCOTUS decided, unlike in Bush v Gore, they weren't going to touch it with a ten foot pole. That doesn't mean everything was above board and didn't deserve review.
People like you who love totalitarianism don't care one whit if "emergency powers" are used as long as the "right" result is obtained.
As I said elsewhere in this thread:
It was Trump's lies that convinced people the Earth is flat.
I read in a comic strip this morning the ultimate proof the earth is not flat.
If the earth were flat, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
Satchmo, all that stuff was litigated. The fact that you and Trump don't like the decisions of some of the state supreme courts doesn't invalidate the election. Everything happened entirely legally.
The Republicans' mistake was to think they could wait to challenge some of this stuff after the fact. If they win, fine, and if they lose, throw the election out. No. That was Kavanaugh's big point (and his only real contribution so far). You can't wait until after you lose to challenge the rules. Republicans had ample opportunity to challenge whatever "emergency powers" they wanted to challenge before the election.
No judges or governors "rewrote state constitutions." Every state has procedures for changing policies in emergencies, and every state indeed changed their election rules in 2020 to account for for circumstances. That is not in fact "totalitarian."
The talking point about "more votes than any other candidate in history" is nonsensical. Given that the population of the U.S. is continually increasing, and the eligible voter pool is continually expanding, it is quite common for a presidential candidate to get more votes than anyone else in history. It happened in 1900, 1904, 1908, 1916, 1920, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1984, 2004, 2008, 2020… (and many times before 1900).
The point crazy Dave, is that, In 1900, 1904, 1908, 1916, 1920, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1984, 2004, and 2008 (and many times before 1900), the winning candidates didn't hide in their basements. You're really pretty dim, aren't you?
(And we'll ignore for now that those elections weren't harvested, unverified mail in ballot fiascoes where votes were counted sporadically for days under questionable procedures. Just pointing that out to get under your crazy skin.)
Of course, bot isn't programmed to know anything, but only to repeat what is fed to it as inputs from social media. In fact, it wasn't until Woodrow Wilson that presidential candidates actually went out and hit the proverbial campaign trail.
I think what a lot of people who look at the 2020 vote don't understand is that Biden didn't get more votes for him than any past President.
Trump got more votes against him than any past candidate. Biden was basically a placeholder, just a generic Democrat. Democrats had successfully whipped up so much hatred of Trump that a department store manikin could have pulled in 80M votes. For all practical purposes, a department store manikin DID pull in those votes.
They just couldn't sustain that white hot hatred, and, of course, by 2024 neither Biden nor Harris were generic Democrats anymore.
Your telepathic understanding of Democrats remains unsupported imaginary insistence, Brett. Do some people hate Trump? Sure?
Is it responsible for the election results? You need to do a lot more work to convince anyone other than yourself of that.
I think you're being reflexively anti-Brett here. I think it's probable that the 2020 vote was driven far more by opposition to the sociopath (especially, but not exclusively, his terrible mismanagement of the pandemic) than support for Biden.
It was the last paragraph that I took real issue with.
Always the same tantrum lash out when you make an ass of yourself crazy Dave.
If you're trying to defend Biden hiding in his basement as somehow a normal example of a modern presidential campaign good luck with that crazy Dave. You're not the sharpest troll in the shed but not even you believe that. Wilson though is a pretty apt example. Someone has been running things and it sure ain't ol'Joe. The big guy is not what he used to be.
And, just so you know, Obama DID refuse to leave DC you gaslighting piece of shit troll.
Mr. and Mrs. Bot:
No one cares what you say, not even the bull what shat it.
Huge factual inaccuracies that demonstrate a lack of connection to baseline American political history is worth pointing out.
So at this point you're mad at Obama for staying in DC (refuse to leave? LOL what a shit attempt to frame)
And Biden for not going outside more in his successful campaign during Covid.
These are all super lame; they are not normal human outrages.
No idiot clown, Obama is offense for interfering in presidential politics. That's why the One refused to leave DC.
Just so you know, Biden didn't really campaign, although others aggressively harvested ballots for him. And Democrats counting ballots for days oddly tends to give Democrats an advantage. Ask California.
That's not what you've said. It's also also a lie.
And your text parser seems to be broken again.
All I can say is "super lame." Seems like a childishly odd expression but you seem to like it so I'm being nice.
So by Obama didn't leave DC, you meant Obama was interfering in elections. That's some bad communication!
Long as I got you, do you like democracy? What do you like about it, as a governance system?
On the contrary, Democrats seem to hate democracy. They didn't much care for the primary process. The coup against ol'joe tossing him out and the installation of Harris as the democrat candidate definitely was interfering in presidential politics. And before that Obama was probably pulling the stings on the demented corrupt clown puppet currently sitting in the WH. He wasn't in DC for the weather and the scenery.
Obama — despite what the racist Trump supporters think — is an American citizen. And of course American citizens getting involved in politics are participating in elections, not "interfering in" them. So if he had been doing what the bot is programed to say he was doing, there would've been nothing wrong with it. (But of course the bot isn't programmed to be correct, so the entire claim is just made up. Just like the bot isn't programmed to know what the word "refuse" means.)
Now, it's accidentally correct when it says that Biden "didn't really campaign," as long as if by "campaign" one means "go around holding big rallies." Not sure why that is supposed to be the measure of campaigning in the 21st century, particularly in a time period in which people were supposed to be avoiding large gatherings anyway. Perhaps bot is confusing Taylor Swift with a politician.
What on the contrary?
I asked you a question. About your positions.
You failed to answer, just attacked Dems. Like a reflex. Or programming.
Nobody brought up race with respect to the big eared git except you crazy Dave. Racism is something that can never truly leave the party of slavery.
deleted.
it is worse than a lie in my book. He simply refused to believe, or even comprehend, the facts in front of him.
Yes. This is always what it is with Trump. Even the cat-eating thing. He has a reckless disregard for the truth.
We've decided to just lump that in and call it "lying," but I agree with you really it's worse. At least a liar knows what's actually going on.
Again: he's a Frankfurtian bullshitter. It's worse than being a liar; he doesn't care whether what he says is true. He doesn't look up the facts and then deny them on occasions when he needs to convince people of something else; he just reflexively says whatever comes into his head without even any thought about whether it's correct or not.
I think Trump does lie a lot more frequently than Obama, but its the consequences of the lie and the intent that matters more, at least to me.
When Trump lies its mostly for self aggrandizment, crowd size, calling a CEO and scrapping plans to move a factory in Mexico, etc. And I will certainly concede not all Trumps lies are consequence free.
But Obama when he lies its about something big like keeping your doctor or insurance plan, and its intentional.
All those unintentional lies.
The 2020 trutherism as not a big thing.
Keep apologizing. Gonna get a workout over the next few years.
"Keep apologizing. Gonna get a workout over the next few years."
Lol. Says the guy who just lost a three year long argument about whether or not Biden was lying when he says he wasn't going to pardon his son.
Ha ha Trump's been issuing a continuous string of outrageous lies for the last 8 years, but keep harping on Biden's lie about Hunter. As if you really cared about abuses of power by the executive. All bad faith.
Can you name a part of Biden's professed personal biography that actually was legitimately correct?
Most people have a hard time naming one.
Oh trotting out your one example of Obama lying again I see. It's getting quite a work out, especially considering you can't quite remember what it was and also not a lie.
"I think Trump does lie a lot more frequently than Obama, but its the consequences of the lie and the intent that matters more, at least to me."
I'm not sure consistently lying is a bad thing. I don't believe a word Trump says. But if someone carefully maintains their credibility and only lies when they really need to con someone, that does more damage.
FWIW, Biden falls into the same category of mendacity as Trump, where one shouldn't believe anything he says.
I'm not sure consistently lying is a bad thing. I don't believe a word Trump says.
Unfortunately tho, many people do.
Wrong, twice !!
Are we to take your assessment of who lied more just because YOU said it...How Obama-ish of you.
And it isn't ad hominem at all -- you yourself admit Obama is a liar b but because you say Trump did more you let the whore off in order to convict the murderer --- as they say in law school.
If you were a lawyer you'd die of your inability to speak honestly.
Obama is a despicable piece of shit.
Obama was the best President we’ve had in the last 20 years. Of course he benefits from the fact that the other three were all various versions of bad, but that’s a selection problem of the parties. We’ve had too many years of “not as bad as the other guy” as our choice.
The Obama years were good for Americans. A strong economy (including an impressive recovery from the supply-side disaster he inherited), moderate fiscal policies that were telegraphed ahead of time so businesses knew what to expect, strong enforcement of immigration laws (including record deportations), increased influence in the world through strong diplomacy, and a calm and levelheaded leadership style. Of the Presidents in my lifetime (Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, Trump, and Biden), he’s in the top 3 with Reagan and Clinton.
Obama is disgrace and stain on the office of the presidency and the projection in his latest speech is pathetic but typical of the left. Projection is all you do. And, as an aside, has there ever been a former president who refused to leave DC after his terms expired? This clown still thinks he's in charge. Given Biden's incompetence, maybe he is? Biden's failures sure feel awfully (literally) like Obama's 3rd term.
Nelson's argument came with support - about the economy, economic policies, foreign policy, and even the right-wing favorite the border.
You attack him, Obama, and complain Obama didn't leave DC.
This kind of sorry display why people aren't sure you're a person, even by the low standards of other not-thinky shitposters around here.
It is fun to point out, at least!
Blanket unsubstantiated statements of biased opinion in favor of Obama are not really all that much support. And Obama not leaving DC like every other president in the history of this republic has some significance, not apparently though to gaslighting, a-hole shithead posters like you.
It is fun to point out at least.
And I'd bet that the big-eared projecting clown is busy closing up shop now. No way the One wants to be in DC when the Trump administration starts exposing all the Democrat corruption.
Right. It's an algorithm:
1) Lash out with hysterical insults.
2) Repeat some random irrelevant talking point from social media.
3) Add a bizarre conspiracy theory to round it off.
Did Obama "refuse" to leave Washington D.C.? Why, no. Trump attempted to; he instigated an attack on the Capitol so he wouldn't have to. Obama simply… chose to live there. Was Obama the first to continue to hang out in DC? Obviously not; JQA served in the House of Representatives for almost two decades after his presidency. Does Obama "still think he's in charge"? It's not even a coherent accusation, and isn't based on anything at all.
Woodrow Wilson stayed in DC, and is buried at the National Cathedral.
I'm not sure we should count paralyzed stroke stricken (bedridden too?) patients. Wilson certainly was in no shape to influence policy behind the scenes wherever he was receiving care. So, if we exclude them from consideration, I think the answer is none for the modern age.
I greatly dislike Obama. Period. But yeah, when he didn't have control of the legislature he didn't try to push a far left wish list as he did with Obamacare and the bailout that gave billions to his green energy buddies. So I guess that is a positive that Obama had to check his natural tendencies.
This idea it was a supply-side collapse is hilarious. It was a banking collapse fostered by big-govt interference. Clinton started, and Bush furthered, a govt backed scheme to approve loans to unqualified applicants. It most certainly helped the Bush administration's economic numbers for several years. The Bush administration also allowed bad loans to be traded as a commodity. Big and small banks were buying up bad loans left and right because they knew the govt would honor them. When foreclosing on homes wasn't paying the bills because they couldn't sell the properties, the scheme collapsed. WE NEED HELP ON LOANS YOU PROMISED TO HONOR!! Bush as parting gift, in conjunction with a dem legislature, gave it to them.
Obama's bailout was a disaster and in hind sight, by most economists, only lengthened the Great Recession. How did Solyndra work out as an example?
Love it when bad things nonobviously but for you undisputedly confirm your priors.
I am not sure what is nonobvious about the banking collapse in 2008, but you do you.
The idea that the financial crisis was cause by too much regulation may be unchallenged in your circles but that is not the case elsewhere.
He didn't say "too much regulation", though it was something adjacent to that. He said that the banking industry had been pressured to make bad loans, with a tacit guarantee that the government would back them. And then had started trading them back and forth, as though mixing them with good loans made the risk go away.
And that IS what happened.
And then we got that "too big to fail" crap, instead of letting some banks fail and indemnifying the depositors through FDIC. And other banks that didn't actually NEED bail outs were forced to accept them anyway, to put them under more extensive federal control.
All in all it was a massive exercise in not letting a crisis go to waste, and the crisis itself was one the government had caused.
Neither your link, nor anything you've said, establishes *anything* about causality for the financial crisis.
And the move to 'it wasn't a regulation it was tacit government influence' is just retreating further from needing evidence of the stuff you want to believe.
Did you see above where I said 'Love it when bad things nonobviously, but for you undisputedly, confirm your priors?'
Cograts on turning nonobvious to unfalsifiable.
"And that IS what happened."
Indeed. This was widely discussed at the time.
Dunno about the following paragraphs, but the part above this is spot on.
It was widely discussed *as the preferred narratives of conservatives*. I noticed it because I read here and some other righty places; it showed up some in mainstream media outlets, but not as the full reason.
I'm not saying there wasn't an effect, but Brett and Satchmo_Lives are saying that's the whole thing; nothing more need be considered.
That's letting a lot of other issues off the hook, Absaroka.
It's also an early example of 'DEI is the reason I'm poor' bullshit.
tldr: A cause is not THE cause.
It's pretty non-obvious what Solyndra has to do with anything.
Well there is this from 2012:
"SEOUL (Reuters) - President Barack Obama was caught on camera on Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have "more flexibility" ...."
Obama, during talks in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him "space" until after the November ballot, and Medvedev said he would relay the message to incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin."
Putin invaded Crimea in 2014, and started tge Donbos invasion, and shot dowm a Malaysian airliner over the territory Putin had soezed.
And then somehow the war Obama might have encouraged got even worse when Biden blessed a "minor incursion" after 4 years of relative quiet in Ukraine 2017-2020.
Still lying about this, I see. Biden did no such thing. No more than George HW Bush approved Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
Biden said that the U.S. response to Russia's actions would depend on what Russia did, that we would react differently to a minor incursion than we would to a full scale invasion. That is not remotely "blessing" a minor incursion, and you're either a malicious liar or totally ignorant. Or, as always, both.
Nelson, the MILITARY .....LOATHED.....OBAMA
Obama's popularity falls to record low among US troops. Why?
Only 15 percent of US active-duty service members approve of President Obama's job as commander-in-chief, according to an annual Military Times survey.
IS this another 'girly' observation : I like Obama...he's good looking and confident and well-spoken....heck with what kind of man he is
Some exit poll indicated had those that felt Democracy was the most important consideration went for Trump. Sorry no link.
I'm shocked, shocked! that you're pulling stuff straight out of your posterior.
You just described every Poll out there
I agree. It is impossible to believe Americans might think that lawfare against political opponents is not democratic.
Do you really think that some polls, of lets say my deeply red rural Texas county, didn't think dems were acting in an undemocratic manner?
Your argument, if you had the intellect, was with "some polls" say...
Not that they exists because they do, but they are meaningless without a wider context. Did "some people" think
BidenHarris was the best choice to lead? Yeah. it doesn't mean shit.Actually nothing new about this. It happens whenever Democrats lose. For Democrats, it's not democracy unless they win.
Oh no, Rivabot needs to be debugged after misunderstanding the article completely.
Because he mentioned over and over the newest four letter word: democracy. Democracy implies a bulwark against MAGA or anyone else. It's amazing watching all this happen
Except the 2024 election, right? Democracy saw a rebuke of Democrats and their Marxist, Fascist, Globalist nonsense.
Except the 2024 election, right?
Literally nobody is saying that.
I know you really want us to be as bad or worse than you are, but it simply isn't true. You (and Brett) will also be mightily disappointed by the lack of rioting on the 6th and the 20th.
He literally just said Democracy was a bulwark against MAGA.
In 2024 Democracy embraced MAGA with nearly every county in the country shifting towards MAGA.
Americans are sick of your America Last bullshit.
No, even in 2024, democracy is a bulwark against MAGA. Already Trump is having a hard time getting his more extreme nominations done. And the MAGAs in Congress will be constrained by not wanting to lose all their seats in 2026.
I handful of uni party embeds with a 95% relection rate who vote with what the population wants 10% of the time while having a 5% favorability rating isn't Democracy.
A professional political class that gets super wealthy while in office isn't democracy.
The people voted for change, the professional DC creatures are ignoring Democracy.
In 2024 a majority of people voted against MAGA. (Or, to put it entirely neutrally: didn't vote for MAGA.)
BLM was busy partying at the super-mansion bought with the donations of the working poor 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVEaxc4chdg
Black Lives Matter Buys a $6 Million Mansion with Donation Money
blocked
Obama has always been expert at pretending not to believe certain things while actually believing those things. He used to speak out of both sides of the mouth during his presidency; he hasn't changed at all.
Also: why does Obama matter? Why is this guy still "relevant"?
I guess because he still seems to trigger people like you.
Because erasing the memory of something will erase its existence. It's one of the steps in totalitarianism
Indeed, that is why all relics of the Confederacy have to be removed.
This is a concern. It's also why the relics haven't been destroyed, just moved from their positions of reverence and celebration. And typically replaced with plaques explaining the history, reasoning, and new location of the relic.
Confederate monument melted down to create new, more inclusive public art
Popular Mechanics even ran a tutorial on how to safely destroy a statue.
You cite the Charlottesville Lee statue. As evidence that Randal's general trend was wrong.
I don't know if Randal is right, but your example having a specific and notable history renders it pretty bad as evidence of a general trend.
Naming military bases after treasonous generals made as much sense as would naming an airport after Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Our first President was a "treasonous General"
But Don, smart people see the stupidity fo that statement. Who gets to define what is and is not a relic of the Confederacy ???? WHy , Folks, it tuns out to be Don. Well, aint that nice for Don 🙂
Peter,
It is rather amazing how knee-jerker mind-readers find things that are not that have never been said into a statement, so that they can insult someone and troll for an argument.
There seems to be a major disconnect on the part of Democrats. They erroneously assume that if preserving or protecting democracy what at or near the top of issues driving you to the polls, that you would naturally support them.
It's pretty obvious that for a significant percentage of voters it was the exact opposite, and who can blame them? It is the height of hypocrisy that the party that tried to convict, imprison, and remove the opposing candidate from state ballots could have the unmitigated gall to talk about "saving democracy".
It is the height of hypocrisy that the party that tried to convict, imprison, and remove the opposing candidate from state ballots could have the unmitigated gall to talk about "saving democracy".
Why? I will put aside that a 'party' did not prosecute or attempt to remove. The Colorado insurrection case was brought by non-Democrats. Specific prosecutors brought cases against Trump. Only one came to trial. The proper punishment (imprisonment or otherwise) did not arise in the other cases.
Democracy does not mean people are free from criminal liability. Running for office is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Also, the Constitution provides multiple means to bar people from federal office. For instance, a person removed by impeachment might be barred from federal office.
The 22A also puts in place a term limit. And, yes, the 14A provides a disqualification in place to protect democratic institutions. The question is merely how far it reaches. It is not meaningless. Someone potentially can be disqualified from office.
Democracy does not mean anyone can run for public office. Here and abroad, democracy puts certain limitations in place. It is not some sort of egregious thing. It in fact protects the system.
Democracy can have a lot of definitions, but attempting to subvert the will of the majority of voters is not one of them.
*point of information:
Trump does not appear to have received the votes of a "majority of voters" in 2024.
Specifically, he's slightly under 50% of the votes cast.
He won, yes. No, "plurality" =/= "majority".
"45/47" will get a majority of the 538 who actually elect the President (or will he? I don't count it as a "W" until Sleepy Joe's back in Delaware permanently)
Frank
Yeah, well California had a month to manufacture votes to steal at least 6 House seats.
Who the fuck knows if any malfeasance occurred in counting the ballots? The very fact they can't get their shit together for a month should call for a rebuke from everybody claiming to be interested in free and fair elections. Unfortunately, one side only pays lip service to the ideal.
"Can't get their shit together"? Are you under the impression that they started counting, lost track, had to start over, dropped the ballots on the floor, had to start over again, etc.?
As for "Who the fuck knows if any malfeasance occurred in counting the ballots": the people involved in counting them and/or observing the counting, which always include Republicans and Democrats, know.
Anyone whose actually been a volunteer observer knows you can't see or do shit. It's purely for show. In 2020, they actually excluded you "due to COVID" but only if you were a Republican.
False, of course.
"It's totes cool to try to keep a man off the ballot 'cause ONLY 49.999998% of voters support him" is quite the take.
Did anyone make that argument, or is it just a dishonest strawman on your part?
The argument is that it's okay to try to keep a man off the ballot if he's not eligible under the existing rules. That a majority of people didn't support him is refuting a separate point — that we should ignore those rules if a majority of people support him.
NO, it is the voter equivalent of Jury Nullification. Every being on the planet knew/knows about the Trump Trial.If they vote for him on the ballot they are not agreeing with the court. And, face it, you only recognize the court when it agrees with you. My way is fair on the face of it. You want a trial to preclude me voting for Trump.
For up-to-date numbers:
https://www.cookpolitical.com/vote-tracker/2024/electoral-college
You are free to check the numbers yourself, and tell us if a "majority of voters" voted for Trump.
Is CA still counting votes?
According to RCP there are still about 10 states counting votes (most at 99%, IL at 96%) and CA is among them.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2024/president/
Only in America, lmao.
To the original point, upthread. Things in DC will be a little (d)ifferent now. The shoe is on the other foot.
And the (R)acists will deny their racism, and the (R)evenge High will dissipate any day now...
A mojority DID and every state moved righward.
"Two third-party candidates — Jill Stein and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — received more than 750,000 votes each. As a result, neither Trump nor Harris achieved a majority of votes." A majority of those voting voted for Trump. Let's use words correctly.
You are using neither words nor math correctly. A plurality of those voting voted for Trump. A majority did not.
Democracy can have a lot of definitions, but attempting to subvert the will of the majority of voters is not one of them.
Legal limits are not superseded if a majority of the voters decide they do not matter. A majority of the voters do not have the power to elect Trump president a third time in 2028 without an amendment to the Constitution.
“ but attempting to subvert the will of the majority of voters is not one of them”
You mean like Trump and Republicans tried to do in 2020 with their baseless “stolen election” campaign and their false electoral slates? Like that?
Do you really think that after the utter assholishness of BIden Harris the crusghing victory by Trump is a fluke ?
THE sub-sub-par Biden has been around over 50 years.It is quite likely he lost in 2020. His huge army of detractors are not all new to his ugly lying stupidity --- or do you think they are.
"Democracy does not mean people are free from criminal liability. "
Remember that when Mr Biden issues more preemptive pardons. That this is even being considered is an affront to democracy.
Preemptive pardons might be misguided.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/12/joe-biden-pardon-donald-trump-enemies-list.html
But, the system of criminal liability in this country, as with other democracies, includes a pardon system. It is not inherently an "affront to democracy" to use the pardon system.
Pardons are sometimes used to forestall further wrongs. It is a case-by-case situation to determine if they are justified. The concern behind the talk here is far from unreasonable.
Of course you're defending selling out the country.
Does this mean we're not a democracy because the pardon power exists?
Democracy is an appellation about a system, not about individual actions.
There is a sizeable cohort on the right that's not a fan of the system, no matter how you slice it (majority rule, rights-based system of government, federalism, anti-federalism, elections that don't go their way...)
There is absolutely a group like that on the left, but 1) it's all the same group, and 2) they're marginalized.
That the right's somehow gotten chuckleheads to believe Biden is a radical doesn't mean he is.
See also: Harris. And Obama.
On the other hand, check out Trump sometime.
You need to read better rather than writing a knee jerk reaction.
There is nothing wrong with the pardon per se. Clemency has been a part of all political systems. In fact for years, the White House has used a detailed system to examine pardon requests. Are some pardons for past offenses personally or politically motivated? Sure.
However, preemptive pardons for any and all years past, past purely on political motivations, when nothing has been charged or investigated, are an affront to democracy regardless of your excuses.
This comment has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr Trump. That you mention his name suggests that your mind is locked into perpetual partisanship.
You've switch from anti-democratic to wrong and then to 'an affront to democracy.'
I believe there's a reason why you've had to shift your thesis. If a bad pardon is bad for democracy, how do you distinguish good pardons? How is the preemptive/post-hoc distinction functionally different re: democracy?
I mean, you can throw in with Nelson and his 'all pardons are an affront to democracy' but a criticism of Biden beyond that is going to be hard to keep specific.
I shifted nothing. Please read better. I said affront top democracy in the first place. I never said "anti-democratic wrong." Those words are a figment of your imagination.
You've got to do better than that.
Then you raise all sort of misleading and irrelevant bullshit. I have never criticized all pardons. I noted that executive clemency has been a part of all political systems.
Either you are losing it today OR you are committed to lying to try to win an argument. Take your pick.
I didn't say what you think I said about what you said.
Say that 5 times fast.
To make it quick - why is a preemptive pardon an affront to democracy, but a post-conviction pardon isn't?
A better question is what any of it has to do with democracy at all. We don't hold a popular vote on guilt or innocence.
I suppose it would be an affront to democracy to pardon someone for trying to subvert democracy, but that has nothing to do with Hunter Biden.
“ Remember that when Mr Biden issues more preemptive pardons. That this is even being considered is an affront to democracy.”
I would argue that, though Constitutional, the pardon power is an affront regardless of whether they are being issued defensively or offensively (pun intended).
The concept is admirable, where a President can fix injustices visited upon citizens. But like all things, if you give a single powerful person absolute freedom from consequences or limitations they will abuse that power. That’s why the checks and balances of the Constitution have created such an extraordinary nation. It’s very, very hard to be a totalitarian in America, as Trump is discovering through his appointments.
Nelson,
Executive clemency has been a part of all political systems. Some are justified by justice, some by mercy and some by political expediency.
Holding someone harmless for anything he may have done in the past is what has a foul odor.
Remember that when Mr Biden issues more preemptive pardons.
He hasn't issued any preemptive pardons yet, so he can't very well issue more.
In fairness, the pardon of Hunter was in part preemptive.
Not by Don's own definition of preemptive.
There is nothing wrong with the pardon per se... However, preemptive pardons... when nothing has been charged or investigated...
Hunter has been the subject of a continuous investigation nee fishing expedition for over four years, speculatively, for any and all things.
Randal,
Tell us what you think my definition of preemptive is.
I am curious, because i think you are twisting that definition
I just quoted what you wrote. Do you want to clarify your testimony? Maybe you don't think investigations are enough to justify a pardon after all, there have to be actual charges?
Investigations about specifics would seem to be a justification for a pardon about said matters.
Possible preemptive pardons of people like Fauci would not fall into that category. Rather they appear to be an abuse of a plenary power.
Not true.
His pardon of Hunter for all actions uncharged, uninvestigated, unknown and unknown was preemptive. It was attached to a pardon for past deeds prosecuted.
He didn't pardon Hunter for anything that's been uninvestigated.
The pardon includes this statement:
For those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024, including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted (including any that have resulted in convictions) by Special Counsel David C. Weiss in Docket No. 1:23-cr-00061-MN in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and Docket No. 2:23-CR-00599-MCS-1 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
"May" here means anything under the sun. I'm not sure that every conceivable prosecution has been investigated, including possibly arising from evidence (or "evidence") Kash Patel, etc. will find ("find") in the next few years.
The open-ended nature of the pardon here is a result of the open-ended nature of the threat. I dropped an article arguing it is a prudentially misguided approach as applied in an open-ended way to a bunch of people. At the very least, it is risky.
I don't think it is always inherently bad, especially given the threat at hand of retaliation. Any possible "foul odor" is akin to unpleasant medicine used to attack a more unpleasant disease.
Anyway, he hasn't done anything yet in this respect except for pardoning Hunter Biden, for valid reasons as covered by various people here and elsewhere.
Exactly. The open-ended nature of the pardon reflects the open-ended nature of the investigation.
If Don thinks it's preemptive to pardon something that's merely in the investigation stage, fine, he can say so. I think he's right, though, that an appropriate use for pardons can be to shut down improper investigations. In the case of Hunter, that means a blanket pardon. It's not preemptive, it's intended to stop the open-ended investigation that is in fact underway, as you said.
Yes, he did. He pardoned Hunter for every federal crime he might have committed over a 10-year period, investigated and uninvestigated, known and unknown alike.
10 years and 11 months. Why did the pardon go back to Jan 1, 2014?
Maybe Hunter committed capital murder in D.C. in February 2014? Seriously, no idea why Biden picked that date. The normal statute of limitations for federal crimes is 5 years, but for some crimes, it's 10 years. Other than terrorism or homicide, I don't think there's many that go more than 10 years; I can't see how Hunter could be vulnerable even with the most Javertian Trump prosecutor for any crimes before 1/20/2015.
Of course you know why he picked that date. Hunter joined the board of Burisma in May of that year.
I do not in fact know why Hunter Biden joining a board in May means that he would need immunity back to January, especially since even if he had committed a crime the maximum possible statute of limitations wouldn't extend before December of that year.
He pardoned Hunter for every federal crime he might have committed...
Yes, and Hunter has been investigated for every federal crime he might have committed.
It's so cute that you seem to really believe it.
Nonsense, his pardon was blanket for any and all actions for the past 11 years.
You are welcome to be blind to that for you political satisfaction.
I'm just trying to figure out your rule. How would you have worded the pardon if you wanted to cover everything that Hunter has been investigated about?
There is no way to do so, without either issuing a blanket pardon or itemizing the specific offenses you want to cover.
Quite. Biden issued the minimal pardon needed to quash the actual, not theoretical, ongoing investigations into Hunter. Hence not preemptive.
Even if your pedantry made any sense, it would be misplaced here since a pardon does not in fact prevent or preempt investigations.
Exit polls bear this claim out. 75% of the people felt democracy was threatened and they voted for Trump 50-48. The other 25% voted for Trump 49-48. And undoubtedly, Harris voters felt Trump's attempt to steal the 2020 election culminating in Jan 6 was the threat while Trump voters felt the efforts to keep him off the ballot was the threat.
The problem is the latter belief is based on accepting Trump's lies about 2020 (that he won and did nothing wrong). There is no way to get past when one side believes the Earth is flat.
It is not a huge stretch of the imagination when we see the lengths those supposedly in charge of fairly counting the votes in places like Bucks County, PA went to by actually thumbing their nose at the State Supreme Court and counting ballots ruled invalid in spite of an order to not do so.
I for one never believed in the "the machines were compromised" craziness. I went so far as to bring a wideband RF for lack of a better term "sniffer" to the lot in front of my poll to look for any anomalous Wifi or data signal. There was none. What I questioned was the security and validity of the mail in process. I still do. I am never going to accept any election as completely reliable that isn't conducted in person, on one day, with proper ID
I can see reasonable (though people can disagree) arguments for "in person" and "with proper ID".
What's your argument that <24 hours is somehow magic, but 25 hours is not?
In other, less subtle words: where are you making arguments based on actual election security, and where are you making arguments based on "I want to make it harder for 'the wrong people' to vote"?
I wouldn't get so hung up on the precise number of hours. The broader point, discussed here a great deal, is that everyone should submit their votes before any are counted, and the counting should start and conclude in a short enough time that it's infeasible to react in real time to the trends emerging from the counts and deploy countermeasures.
How about simply counting the number of ballots period before counting the actual results? Submit the number of total ballots before you begin the counting.
Current,
I think that Democrats would go for it. It would mean, of course, that members in the military (ie, overseas) would be almost completely disenfranchised...absolutely no way we'd carve out an exception for them. Kinda sucks to risk your life serving your country in some hot spot around the world, while not being permitted to vote (assuming your commander doesn't give his entire platoon a week off, to travel back to the States, and back to each person's individual state, so they can cast their ballot.
But I'd be willing to let your military ID (with photo, of course) count as "proper."
1) It was a few hundred ballots.
2) They weren't secretly doing it.
3) It was stopped as soon as adults entered in the room and pointed out the idiocy of what was happening, at which point the nose-thumber walked back her statements and said, "Oh, I didn't really mean that."
"2) They weren't secretly doing it."
It's OK, they were only cheating publicly.
Of course, we don't know what they were doing secretly, if we did, it wouldn't be secret. But we know they're willing to cheat.
No, we know that they had started to do something incorrectly. Have you ever been an election judge or worker?
No, I haven't. Why? Do most of them say that they know what they're doing is wrong but they're going to do it anyway?
"It is not a huge stretch of the imagination when we see the lengths those supposedly in charge of fairly counting the votes in places like Bucks County, PA went to by actually thumbing their nose at the State Supreme Court and counting ballots ruled invalid in spite of an order to not do so."
This is a point I frequently make: The primary threat to the legitimacy of elections that has to be guarded against is cheating by the people running the elections, not people on the outside.
It's like bank robberies being flashy, but embezzlement actually being a bigger threat.
You DON'T make that point. You support any crazy ballot security anyone puts forward, and *regularly* posit that in-person ballot fraud is a huge issue hidden only because Democrats don't care to look into it.
You used to be awful, but consistent. Now you lie about what you've said.
Still at denial?
Denial of what?
They erroneously assume that if preserving or protecting democracy what at or near the top of issues driving you to the polls, that you would naturally support them.
I completely agree. The problem is entirely that a near majority of voters decided to elect an insurrectionist con man felon found liable for rape and fraud, essentially out of spite. We deserve everything we get.
Liar.
LMFAO
Agreed. When Randal listed a few of Trump's many sins and vices, he forgot to include "pathological liar" as well. Thanks for reminding us (not that we really needed it) of Trump's most persistent and unavoidable character defect.*
*Trump's unwillingness or inability to tell the truth doesn't make me laugh any part of my ass off; but your mileage obviously may vary.
It is, sometimes, funny, like when he would actually be better served by the truth but reflexively lies anyway against interest.
I agree...it's genuinely bemusing sometimes. As you note; there have been plenty of situations in the past where the truth would have served him just fine. But, still, generally-speaking; his first instinct is to lie.
I guess, like the scorpion and the frog; it's just his nature.
49.9% of Americans can't be wrong.
Heh.
"We deserve everything we get."
Indeed, we do.
Yes. Nearly everybody believes in protecting democracy. They just have very different ideas of what that means.
Before anyone is deceived by this post into thinking Obama is being a great uniter and a good sport, you missed the parts where he goes full partisan like where he without a hint of irony accused republicans of politicizing the armed forces and judicial system.
Obama had an 8-year chance as President to be a uniter. A lot of people hoped he would. He ended up being more divisive than Trump.
I wish we could find out, but I would have happily taken an even odds bet on Obama had 2024 been Obama versus Trump. Unlike Harris, Obama has charisma and wasn't tied to Biden's record on inflation or the border.
When he left office, his approval rating stood at over 55% (up from about 50% during most of his last year). Trump's approval rating never got above 45%. Hard to conclude Obama was more divisive.
Obama was more popular than Biden or Kamala obviously but the SJW nonsense and culture wars really went into overdrive during his term. If anyone's doubtful they can see it in action themselves by for example going to google engram viewer and typing in one of several associated terms and seeing its popularity over time. As shown in the below examples.
https://ibb.co/Y3GxsN2
https://ibb.co/c3KVdKL
https://ibb.co/tYwWBbn
What's the relevance of your charts to Obama's popularity?
I'm contradicting your claim that Obama wasn't divisive.
I don't see how your data supports that claim.
I posted the graphs more for others who might be browsing around and curious about actually understanding things not for people like you since you're a left zealot eternally arguing for the sake of it and will simply reject anything presented.
Evasion noted.
And by the way, I'm center-left, not a zealot.
Uh no, crossing your arms and simply repeating 'I don't believe it' to hard data instead of a good faith attempt at information exchange and openminded analysis and conclusions is the evasion. Must be opposite time in Dem land.
I didn't repeat "I don't believe it." I said that only once, expecting you to explain why the data support your claims. Also, I did not say Obama was not divisive. I said Obama was not more divisive than Trump.
The beliefs of people regarding various social issues changed over time and that was … Obama’s fault? Especially since he wasn’t a radical in any sense, especially on cultural issues. He was about as technocratic and culturally hands-off as a modern President gets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The beliefs of people regarding various social issues changed over time and that was … Obama’s fault?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If something isn't changing or changing more slowly then suddenly and massively does under someone's presidency that pushes for those changes its a reasonable thing to think it might have something to do with them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Especially since he wasn’t a radical in any sense, especially on cultural issues. He was about as technocratic and culturally hands-off as a modern President gets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Matthew Shepherd fake hate crime victim Act
Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal
Trayvon Martin is my son!
piggybacking gun control off shootings
VAWA reauthorization rhetoric
Supported repeal of DOMA and Obergefell
really avoiding those social/cultural issues! Oh so you guys admit to lying all those times you gush about what a transformative president he is? Or I suppose you will run off to another forum and switch back narratives.
MAGA online has taken, "We got more racist when Obama was president" to be somehow equivalent to "Obama was racially divisive."
The Great Awokening did happen during his term.
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18259865/great-awokening-white-liberals-race-polling-trump-2020
Nope. He tried being a uniter but he exposed the fact that for many people, having a black man as president was a step too far.
There was an attitude, also, that I characterise as "it's Obama's fault I've been a racist all my life".
That would be 1/2 black.
And, for the record he was elected twice thanks to white voters.
Sure, the Nazis and skinheads and Klan members and white supremacists were huge supporters of Obama.
Oh, you mean the ones that weren’t part of the Republican fringe? Well, duh. Moderates overwhelmingly supported Obama.
Oh, so your defence of American racism is that Obama was only half black.
So explain to me how those white voters who voted for Obama twice were racists.
I can't tell if you genuinely can't see the logical flaws in your own argument. No one is claiming that the white voters who voted for Obama were racists. The argument you want to address is: Were white voters who voted *against* Obama racist?
I think it's obvious that huge swaths of white (non-Obama) voters were not racist. But I think it's equally obvious that large numbers were racist. I don't know how old you are; but anyone who was an adult at the time remembers the enduring (and purely racist) lies that Obama was born in Kenya. Trump was the MAIN cheerleader of this *racist* lie.
In fact, I'm convinced that *this* racist lie was the main reason why, in 2015 and 2016, the Racist-Idiot vote when exclusively to Trump in the Republican primaries, and exclusively to Trump in the general.
I generally don't ascribe racism when other, more benign, motivations can explain behavior. But, with Birtherism, I'm happy to call a person a racist, to his/her face, if that person continued to spout "Born in Africa!" nonsense a minute after hearing about Obama's birth announcement in the Hawaii newspaper . . . let alone after learning of the fucking birth certificate.
So, yeah. A lot of Americans were racist. I see nothing in the past 8 years that suggests that they had a Come-to-Jesus moment and have given up their racist beliefs.
But according to BLM, Antifa and DEI proponents ALL whites are racists.
No! According to your characterization of those entities; all whites are racist. I have had zero interaction with Antifa or DEI. But in the 30 conversations I have had with BLM activists, *no one* made such a sweeping generalization.
Stop getting all your information from far-right-wing medial outlets and from the internet. Go out into the real world, and have conversations with real human beings on the other side. It might be an illuminating experience for you.
Republicans are politicizing the armed forces and the judicial system. Calling for unity doesn't mean turning a blind eye to the other side's divisive shenanigans. The opposite, actually, since it doesn't work when one side is conciliatory and the other isn't (as we've seen for pretty much my whole life).
I mean you could say the side that is conducting social engineering experiments on the military and using lawfare to prosecute its opponents (while the other side did not do this or at least did much less of it) is the side that isn't politicizing these things and the side that criticizes this is. Its a matter of perspective I guess.
Hypothetically, how many crimes would Trump have to be tried and convicted of before you would stop whining about lawfare and admit the guy's conduct is the problem? I'm guessing infinity crimes.
Obama's idea of being a uniter was bringing a gun to a knife fight.
Obama, like Harris and Biden, preached unity. Trump does not.
This is big news - there's a link between our two universes - a link which Internet messages can cross.
What else is going on in your universe - did Buddy Holly and Jimi Hendrix die of old age?
Are you seriously suggesting you live in a universe where Dan's statement isn't true?
Yes because it isn't. Unity doesn't mean agreeing with the Dems or you're a threat to Democracy.
I see the problem. You don't know what "preaching unity" means. Obama's not talking to you, he's talking to me, and he's preaching unity. Trump is talking to you, and he absolutely is not preaching unity.
Oh my bad, preaching unity means calling everyone who doesn't agree with you a bigot, racist, threat to democracy, and a Nazi.
Makes sense.
When did Obama (or Biden or Harris) call you any of those things?
https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-biden-donald-trump-presidential-pennsylvania-edd46881a1c0c71df97663ac37236f26
Holy moly why are so many of you people so low-information?
Is that how they keep you licking their boots?
Hahaha ok yes, Biden called you a "semi-fascist." That's true.
It's nice to at least know that you took offense to that characterization.
You're doing your best Sarcastr0 impression or something?
Who said I took offense to anything? I answered your question, which was as dumb as "what color is the sky", but I still answered it.
I don't take offense at anything you dipshit Marxists say. Your db words have no power over me. Imagine if it did, I'd be like some fragile tranny or homo where I'm off killing myself because some stranger a 1000 miles away doesn't approve of my lifestyle. Which, of course, is the medical sign of perfect mental health .
I'd be like some fragile tranny or homo where I'm off killing myself because some stranger a 1000 miles away doesn't approve of my lifestyle.
This is, pretty much, what I imagine you like, except instead of being suicidal you mask your feelings of inadequacy with aloof anger. MAGA, as a whole, is pissed off that America doesn't much like or need them anymore, you semi-fascist.
But why would you think that when I don't have a 43% suicide rate?
JHBHBE, are all of the critics of Barack Obama "racists"?
1/2 racists. His Momma was white.
Many racists adhere to the "one drop rule." For example, seven of Homer Plessy's great-grandparents were white; only one was black.
According to the Democrats yes. Everyone who doesn't subscribe to their secular Globalist anti-White anti-human ideology is a racist, bigot, and domestic terrorist.
Remember according to DEI official platforms, ALL Whites are racist, by their definition.
Especially people like you who routinely say racist comments about blacks.
No, I don't routinely say racist comments about blacks. I have regularly offered harsh criticism of one particular oreo who has made a career of exploiting his blackness -- a quisling in the struggle for racial equality.
I have also said (more than once) that Hillary Clinton reminds me of Lady Macbeth. According to your worldview, JHBHBE, does that make me misogynist?
> one particular oreo who has made a career
lol wow I love how it's you White Saviors defining what a real black person is.
Can you describe for dear Gentle Reader, your definition of a non-"oreo" black?
Im going to guess it has big lips, baby mamas, fried chicken, grape drink, raping White women, and menthols somewhere in it.
How do you claim to know whether I am white, black, or otherwise, JHBHBE?
I can tell by how racist you are that you are a White liberal.
"I can tell by how racist you are that you are a White liberal."
That is a huge non sequitur, which merely illustrates how willing and eager you are to make shit up. White liberals are (stereo)typically opposed to racism. Tolerance and egalitarianism are characteristic of liberals, regardless of race.
non sequitur?
Directly follows:
Where did you get your law degree from? Hollywood Upstairs Law School?
> White liberals are (stereo)typically opposed to racism.
lol, White liberals think blacks, and only blacks, are too stupid to get an ID. And are too stupid to get anywhere on merit. And are too pathetic to do anything without some White Savior giving them handouts.
When a White liberal sees a black man, they say to themselves "oh that poor black person, what can the government do to help him?!?". They don't say that about anyone else.
Nothing says unity like constantly calling the other side a threat to democracy and calling them nazis.
Of course Biden did take off the partisan extremist hat for a moment to avoid looking bad after the trump assassination attempt and then put it right back on. So maybe this was the moment the OP took his earplugs out.
Amos defining himself as the worst thing he can imagine Obama saying and then calling Obama divisive for being imagined to say it.
Are you stupid? Amos never said Obama, he said Biden.
You're worse than some dumb reddit bot, atleast they can read.
The reason this sounds so odd, from the other side, is that Trump never misses an opportunity to insult us. Whether it's a rally, a court filing, a holiday message, a call in to Fox News, or a tweetstorm, rest assued he'll call us enemies of the people, enemies of the state, corrupt, lunatics, inhuman garbage, groomers, evil, fascists or communists interchangeably, un-American, terrorists, weak, stupid, and / or fictional.
Yet you guys freak out to the max when Biden doesn't call you garbage one time and then walks it back anyway and apologizes. Such sad snowflakes.
Being snowflakes is one thing. I'm more worried that you've gotten so ensconsed in your comfortable cocoon of victimhood that you may never emerge.
A country full of chronic victims. You're the new welfare queens, except your food stamps are Trump's daily emotional welfare checks delivered directly into your systems via Truth Social.
Yet you guys freak out to the max when Biden doesn't call you garbage one time and then walks it back anyway and apologizes. Such sad snowflakes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What are you talking about? Lol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Being snowflakes is one thing. I'm more worried that you've gotten so ensconsed in your comfortable cocoon of victimhood that you may never emerge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
'You're the SNOWFLAKE!' cries the man with multibillion dollar DEI industry, endowed professorships, government initiatives, organizations and thinktanks all specifically devoted to complaining how oppressed they are. LMAO
What are you talking about?
https://images.app.goo.gl/My2c5oNW1SCyEASq5. I'm pretty sure it's you!
"If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun"
- Pres Barack Obama
Unity, indeed.
I think that was his Chief of Staff Rahm Manuel
According to snopes, it was Obama himself.
I keep saying this, and it angers people. So what?
The biggest threat to democracy wasn't the idiotic theater of Jan. 6, which got out of control, but 8 years of turning the investigative and prosecutorial power of government against a political opponent because he was a political opponent.
Many such initiatives, but in this context even worst was the attempt to get him off the ballot.
How's that for lying fraud from people who love and protect democracy. Or maybe it was attempts to jail him right before an election. Or trying to get tweets, awful to be sure, hidden or tagged with warning disclaimers, right before the previous election.
These, and other efforts, by facetious, lying frauds claiming to want to protect democracy.
Democracy was, and is still, under threat. But take the plank out of your own eye, first, liars.
"against a political opponent because he was a political opponent"
There are a lot of political opponents.
This specific one was subject to lots of civil and criminal liability. Why? The breadth of his repeated civil and criminal wrongs.
To be clear, a "political opponent" specifically didn't do these things. Individual prosecutors, including a special counsel, and grand/trial juries were involved.
The attempt to get him off the ballot was a long shot done in the main case (Colorado) by non-Democrats. Guided by a specific constitutional provision. In place to protect democracy.
Democracy involves the rule of law. People who run for office as well as government officials voted in are subject to it. Many people elected to office have been prosecuted for crimes.
Trump is not special under our system -- rightly applied -- even if the lie is promoted he is.
They conveniently forget he was a convicted fraudster before he ever got into politics. Trump University and his bogus 501(c)(3) are basically Donald Trump in a nutshell.
How is paying off some 'ho a crime?
The J6 attack in isolation wouldn't have been such a huge threat. But it wasn't in isolation; it was part of a planned coup attempt. The only thing worse than that in American history was the Civil War.
So 5/29, 9/11, 12/7, and 11/22 were what?
There were other bad things that happened in and to the U.S. — though I must admit that I am not clear what 5/29 refers to. The fall of Constantinople? Rhode Island ratifies the constitution? — but that's not the same as threats to our democratic institutions.
Snake oil salesman sells snake oil; Eugene approves.
You wouldn't know a snake oil salesman if you voted for him, Bee.
I didn't and wouldn't but you did and we got 8 years of Obama and four of Mr. Sharp as a Tack.
...It's what keeps you from pulling down a sign in your neighbor's yard supporting a cause you find completely irritating, and it keeps him from doing the same to you...
This part made sense to me. I have seen it happen, and escalate.
Pluralism is one way to say it. Tolerance is another. And tolerance is in very short supply these days.
Investigating a political opponent in many and unending initiatives is scorn for democracy.
Working hard to get him prosecuted and convicted, and ideally, sentenced and jailed, before the election is scorn for democracy.
Worrying he was trying to delay until after the election should be of zero importance if your real reason is disinterested concern for rule of law, which does not care about such things. But not if your real effort is scorn for democracy and power grab management.
One professor even recognized this, though most of you democracy-scorners didn't, so he wrote a paper on how important it was for The People to see timely prosecution of crimes, something no doubt he would push the opposite when it comes to implementing the death penalty. "Well, death penalty is very important!", your thought process cranks out (and I agree!). And who is the next president isn't? Apparently not, if you scorn democracy.
During the first impeachment, it was pointed out that's purely political and they don't have to have warrants or 4th amendment protection. I suggested they should adhere to the 4th and 5th in spirit anyway, and was met with joyous glee that, for impeachments, they had the honor of going against a political opponent deliberately, thus exposing the real motivations behind all the other types of initiatives, where they need rationalized cover stories. Whatever the hell that is, it sure is no stranger to scorn for democracy.
You tried to get him kicked off a state ballot or two, by trying it in a blue state, to get the ball rolling so a purple state under your control would follow suit. I pointed out how you only needed one or two such states to force him to lose, and called out this math, which, of course, was your goal. A Supreme Court justice directly asked if a single state should decide the next president for the country this way. Hint: It wasn't "one of the conservative ones, frowny-face". Your behavior is only scorn for democracy.
"But Trump is awful!" I agree. And for the next four years now, I have to, oddly and suspiciously, keep pointing out letting dictator tanks roll through Europe isn't, gosh, actually a value. Which is completely separate from your own scorn for democracy. So what if little Jimmy over there took a cookie from his mom's cookie jar? You put those six flats of Oreos back in the cupboard, scorners!
“ Investigating a political opponent in many and unending initiatives is scorn for democracy.”
Investigating crimes is … anti-democratic? What?
“ Working hard to get him prosecuted and convicted, and ideally, sentenced and jailed, before the election is scorn for democracy.”
Giving criminals a speedy trial is … anti-democratic? What?
“ Worrying he was trying to delay until after the election should be of zero importance if your real reason is disinterested concern for rule of law”
No, it was concern that he would stop the prosecutions after he won. A completely valid concern, as we should see after Jan. 20th.
I agree with Nelson. I've heard this argument before, Krayt, obviously, and no one ever says what the alternative is. Just tolerate criminal behavior from politicians? I mean, he was convicted ffs. It's not like these were frivolous cases.
They sat on their cases to time to make a stink during the election cycle and it backfired.
Thats what happened.
A lot of people don't understand how lying for POLITICAL gain can be defrauding the United States.
Perhaps the federal case would've had fewer critics if it was advertised as a case against forgery and perjury.
The Evolver in Chief, who supported a Candidate who got exactly 0 of the over 16 million votes cast in the Democratic Presidential Primary (Dean Phillips and Jason Palmer got more)
Probably not true actually. Maybe I'll claim to have written her in.
you mean ridden her in, she's been ridden by lots of guys.
I wonder which is more believable...
Just one unsupported chorus of 'I know you are but what am I' from January 06 supporters.
Even ignoring January 06 support, only one side on here includes the open scorn for democracy. You've got the Civil War 2 guy, the Pinochet guy, lots of 'liberty is more important than Democracy' guys.
Hell, how many of you guys *still* claim election fraud with no evidence other than vibes? Even if you won? It's on this thread!
The contrast is stark, and no amount of shallow and reflexive whining can cover it up, except maybe from yourselves, some of the time.
Gonna be a long 12 years for you (might be a long 28, Barron will be eligible to run in 2044)
Uh, it's the Democrats this time around claiming election fraud, you low-information boob.
What's so freaking funny, what's motivating their claims is the loss of all the ballots stolen in 2020. They're all like "where did those 10M ballots go?" Some states got smart you morons, and 86'd many of the ways the Democrats stole 2020.
You're confused. It is open scorn for hypocrisy, not democracy.
Obama, the guest who wouldn't leave.
Frank, and then 3 of my reply guys.
A sea of grey, predictable and unamusing posters.
Without even reading I am sure the knee jerk shitpost is the main reaction here.
Which is, in itself, telling.
Great contribution!
Amazing as always!
Reaffirming his title of Il Douche.
I crack myself up, which is enough for me. Gray? what little hair Jay-Hey's seen fit to leave me with is as Black as (insert "Black" as simile here) Only place I can grow decent hair is my upper lip, where I've been told I look like either 1: Josef Stalin, or 2: the guy on the Blu Oyster Cult "Agents of Fortune" Album, so I go clean shaven
Frank
Even ignoring January 06 support, only one side on here includes the open scorn for democracy. You've got the Civil War 2 guy, the Pinochet guy, lots of 'liberty is more important than Democracy' guys.
Hell, how many of you guys *still* claim election fraud with no evidence other than vibes? Even if you won? It's on this thread!
If so, it is because no one who had supported the whole "Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election" investigation (which involved lying to the FEC about the source of the funding of the Steele dossier, as well as forging evidence in a FISA warrant application against Carter Page) is posting comments here anymore, instead crawling under the rock from where they came.
Well you see since Democracy Dies in Darkness and they are Noble Democracy protectors they were PROTECTING Democracy!
It's the Paradox of Democracy, you have to constantly undermine it in order to save it! I think it was Karl Popper who said that.
I honestly don't know where Obama's so-called reputation as a "uniter" is coming from. I certainly never processed Obama as someone who emphasized what we have in common more than in our differences -- especially for those differences that were both trivial and innate (and thus meant nothing and were unchangeable anyway.)
My memory of Obama is of his disdain for Congress and his love for executive action: "I have a pen and a phone". Simply consider that "Obamacare" passed without a SINGLE Republican vote in the Senate. It couldn't even be passed under regular rules, but as if it was part of a budget reconciliation. And, it passed the Senate in the dead of night on the very day before Congress was set to leave for the Christmas holiday.
No, my memory of Obama is about as far away from being a "uniter" as it is possible to be. Certainly as non-partisan as Biden has been.
The real Obama:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/12/the-obama-projection.php
I think you'll find that it was GOP policy to oppose everything. Obama wanted. Recalk what happened when Boehner tried to reach a deal with Obama, Or what McConnell said was his #1 goal.
So you supported the "Surge" (In Amurican deaths) into Off-Gone-E-Ston in 2009?
My memory of Obama is
Found your problem.
How you perceived Obama is not really evidence for your thesis.
We all like our point of view. But there's a partisan asymmetry in how much people essentialize theirs as the One True Facts.
What an odd take. How one perceives is obviously the only "evidence" for one's point of view.
But you are disputing labeling Obama a united by only referencing your (rather slanted) memory. You weren’t claiming it was just your opinion, you were claiming it was true.
DaveM - Nelson got my point, and has skewered your posts here pretty good.
Obamacare passed by the regular rules. It got 60 votes in the Senate.
A supplement to tweak some things followed via reconciliation. That's probably what you're thinking of.
Ad I once wrote elsewhere:
The case of the surprised racist
This man knows he's not a racist. He has African-American friends and colleagues. He used to hang out with a black kid or two at HS, played sports with them with nary a problem.
In college most of his friends were white - but then, most of the black students' friends were black. He didn't think of them as inferiors. Later on at work he had no problems - and a couple of his black colleagues became friends.
He never heard them complain to him about racism so he assumed it was no longer an issue. He never realised that they never complained to him because hard experience had taught them that most of their white friends, regardless of how liberal they claimed to be, wouldn't actually believe their accounts - at best, they'd think they were exaggerating rather than, all too often, having to downplay it as the reality was far worse.
And then he had his first black boss. He could find nothing wrong with him, but the man still had vague feelings of unease, was disturbed by the disruption of the natural order of things. Black colleagues, yes, but a black boss? Wouldn't he promote "his" people ahead of white colleagues? Even if he didn't, perhaps the boss wouldn't quite get the culture of the firm, a culture our man was comfortable with. Then again he might, but would he be able to deal as effectively with senior management? Our man didn't stop to think that perhaps by being promoted or appointed as boss, that demonstrated that management were satisfied and were not concerned. The boss wasn't quite, in the British phrase, "one of us".
And then a black president happened. Our man didn't vote for him - not because he was biased but because he was naturally conservative and liked McCain. However, if having a black boss went against the "rightness" of things, having a black president was downright seditious. Still, there was nothing he could point to against Obama other than he was definitely not "one of us".
But there were too many other disturbing qualities. Obama was too slick and smart to be black - he wasn't like his black colleagues or the black guys at his garage. Everything about Obama was jarring to him. Intellectually he knew that Obama was just another president, for good or bad, but he couldn't feel about Obama as president the way he could about even that sleazy Bill Clinton;
Obama was just not what his idea of a president should be, and so it became easy to believe that he wasn't really his president. And then in a political discussion, he expressed his dislike for Obama - and he was stunned by the reply. "You think that because you're a racist!"
How could he be? He knew he didn't have a racist bone in his body. The accusation came as a complete surprise. And, because he knew that he was no racist, he handled the accusation through rationalisation - that Obama was ruining the country, giving it to the takers, moving it towards socialism, and so on. And once the rationalisations had taken hold, he could grow to hate Obama, confident in the knowledge that his hatred was based on the hard facts he read online, not the racism he knew he did not have.
And he continued to be surprised when being called out for his racism.
Your race card has expired. The bank is no longer issuing them. Please try some other form of payment.
Clichéd non-response.
Obama is speaking, here, to an audience of center-left voters who might be inclined towards anger, hatred, or resignation by this year's election results. He is trying to remind them that being committed to democracy is being committed to the process, not necessarily the result.
The challenge, for these people, will not necessarily be in learning to get along and live with Trump supporters. The challenge will be figuring out a "pluralism" where one contingent of voters is addicted to rage, as so many of the comments to this post demonstrate.
I don't think the disappointed Harris supporter will have a hard time figuring out how to get along with their Trump-supporting neighbor, as they share tools, host cookouts, watch their kids play together. A good part of their support for Harris was a desire to return to normal politics and to move on from an environment where so much of their headspace is occupied by what Trump is posting to social media. The real question will be whether the Trump supporter is so thoroughly pickled in their own worldview that they can, themselves, move on.
I am sure that many Trump voters - those voting for a return of the 2016-2019 economy, in particular - can abide by Obama's vision of pluralism. I am equally as sure that most of the MAGA chodes posting here cannot.
Well, if "rage" is your tipping point, may I suggest that calling people names such as "MAGA chodes" and casting aspersions on them as so "pickled in their own worldview that they can't move on" hardly helps.
Besides, sometimes an accusation is just an admission in reverse.
Simon's post doesn't sound very ragey to me.
You only have to watch a Trump rally for five seconds to see what a movement that's addicted to rage looks like. There's nothing like that on the Democratic side.
I see no reason to be kind towards people who will never return the favor, no matter how benevolent I behave.
Look - you're either one of these types addicted to rage, or you're not. If you're not, then I'm not talking about you, and you need not take any offense. If you are, then I kindly invite you to suck my dick.
"I don't think the disappointed Harris supporter will have a hard time figuring out how to get along with their Trump-supporting neighbor,"
My wife is a hard core progressive. We are getting ready to downsize and will likely not stay in the same town. She refuses to consider any area that had even a single Trump sign. YMMV.
Yes, there are leftists addicted to rage, as well. I think Obama's message is aimed at people who are not yet at that point. I'm not sure how you reach those people.
I don't want to get involved in your marriage, obviously. But I assume that when she told you this, you and she had some sort of rational and calm discussion, where you reminded her that, even in the most liberal enclaves in America, there are *some* conservatives. I expect there were pro-Trump signs pretty much everywhere. I saw them in the bluest parts of San Francisco, and in Santa Monica, and in West Hollywood. So, she would be excluding 99.9% of America, if she were really to adopt such a (frankly) dumb rule.
There was of course no discussion. You must not be married :<)
LOL. (You are, of course, absolutely correct.) 🙂
I was going to say the same thing as Jmaie, heh.
Who gives a shit what a woman says? Tell her to go fuck herself that you're the man you make the decisions.
…is what JHBHBE wishes he had the guts to say to his mother if only he weren't living in her basement.
IN law school you learn that even Hitler said some true things.
But you also learn to 'go to motive' --- obviously O. doesn't believe a word he said. If Her Dumbness had won he would be in hyperbole land about the vindication of democracy.
Do you not know this 🙂
That's not true, he would definitely have talked about the importance of reaching out and extending an olive branch, as he did after his victories and Bidens'.
I realize that you find it impossible to imagine putting country ahead of party.
In law school you do not in fact learn that.
I can imagine Prof. Kreeft shuddering with every post you make.
He also said "And I understood their skepticism." So don't say he was only quoting someone else. Read more carefully.
Understanding is not agreeing. I realize that you find it impossible to understand anyone you disagree with, but most of us are quite capable of it.
Jon,
And thanks for the insight to your side of the political aisle. Because I believe that you, in fact, do NOT understand the difference between 'understanding' an argument and 'agreeing' with that argument. And it's that sort of blindness that's responsible for the vast majority of the anger in this country. (My opinion only, of course.)
I miss having a president who can speak in coherent sentences and paragraphs.
That would be "read". As an extemporaneous speaker Obama sucked.
I also miss having a President who can read, that's absolutely true.
Rhetoric was his overwhelming skill. It made him President despite a scant background.
At UC Law it was often noted how thin his publication background was. Still he was popular with the students (including my son).
I Halle get your scant resume bit.
Did President Obama Say "the Election Proved that Democracy Is Pretty Far Down on People's Priority List"
All fascists say that when they lose.
Okay, I'll bite. Can you give just one or two cites to where fascists have said this in history? My own quick Google search turned up nothing, so I suspect that it's just a lie you're reflexively saying. But I am fully prepared to eat crow if you can show me that it's what ALL fascists say when they lose. Heck, I'll apologize here if you show me that it's something that--in the past--just 3 fascists have said when they lose. (Wikipedia says there have been at least 20 or 25 fascist governments, so it should be easy for you to cherry-pick just 3 examples of what you claim)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fascist_movements
Shorter version of Obama: We lost, so please don't do to us what we were doing to you.
My rejoinder: As a wise man once said, elections have consequences.
Please don't... govern responsibly and try to make our lives better?
govern responsibly and try to make our lives better
LOL. That was funny.
You're free at any time to elaborate on what great crimes you think Harris had planned, so that you may now celebrate them when Trump himself commits them.
The thing I find most loathsome about you pieces of shit is that you're so cowardly about embracing the kinds of things you'd like your political representatives to do to your political opponents. Own your evil, fascist impulses, or dispense with them. The sly wink-nudging you fuckers insist on doing just makes you look pathetic.
As Malika would say; "every accusation".
Bumbler - you have established to my satisfaction that you are an empty-headed dildo who is fundamentally incapable of rationally defending any view you hold. So is there a reason I should care what you have to say here, or anywhere?
All rhetoric, no content. And offensive too.
Keep it up, worked so well in the last election.
You have earned muting.
Plenty of substantive criticism in that post, BL, your performative muting aside.
All rhetoric, no content.
As I said, you're free to make patent at any time what you'd preferred to leave to implication. Until you choose to do so, my criticism remains apt.
Your performative muting and deflection just underlines my criticism. You're a coward.
I think it says a lot about where you are morally that Obama said nothing like that.
Defining your morality by a liberal who lives in your head is a great way to ignore your moral compass.
Tu quoque forever!
It is hilarious, BL. The bill has come due, and no one wants to pay the bill. So they claim presumptive victimhood.
It won't help.
I listened to the video. Yes. I continue to be impressed by him.
Do you gently tickle his balls while you lick his taint too? What a nice bootlicker you are.
I also listened to him.
He seems to be very bitter. Perhaps he senses that his time has come and gone.
Still, he will enjoy his Midway extravaganza.
Not seeing it, Don.
It is a convenient way to dismiss him.
Impressive in the Joe Stalin meaning of impressive.
Did you just compare Obama to Stalin?
He is a fool you know and delights in saying hateful things
On his support for civil unions for gay couples: “If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount.”
As if... you aren't Christian if you don't accept lust and perversion that uses the secret code words.
Do you see where Hillary learned the art of hateful comments...
At 61 years of age she said
n 2008, Clinton said that she thought abortion should be “safe, legal and rare, and by rare, I mean rare.”
But she did this with gay marriage too
Hillary Clinton in 2004 gave a speech in congress vehemently opposing gay marriage.
A liar or a hypcrite (like Obama) which I do not know.
A lawyer !!! and you don't know that trick ???? Say something so loosely constructed that both sides can feel vindicated. Of course he knew people like you would bail him out if someone disagreed.But look at the Web, both sides heartily embraced their version of what he said.
Obama, after all, won PolitiFact’s “Lie of the Year” Award in 2013 for his endlessly repeated claim that under ObamaCare, “if you like your health plan, you can keep it.”
SAME RHETORICAL TRICK and you fell for it.
Yes, "some people say X" is a common rhetorical trick.
Let's try it:
"Some people say that Obama was secretly a Muslim plant, whose purpose was to weaken the United States and bolster radical Islam, particularly Iran. But don't believe that."
Seeing more and more of the "The real antidemocracy people are the Democrats who did all this antidemocratic stuff that I'm super into the Republicans doing, and more."
Even the more sober-seeming Trump supporters like Bored Lawyer are pulling this shit.
If you care about democracy, you wouldn't be holding yourself to the standards of the people you're insisting are the ones against democracy.
Lots and lots of people here making Obama's point.
Luckily none of you are in charge, but this thread makes it quite clear what Trump's voters would do if they were in charge. And it's dismantle our republic to own the libs.
Relax. Have a good Sunday.
America is not the battleground that you make it out to be.
Assad has fallen; good things can happen. Raise a glass.
I’m going stocking shopping.
I’m fine. I’ll be fine, if Trump doesn’t crash the economy with a trade war.
But the massive divestment from principles Trump supporters got going on is something I’m going to continue to point out.
But yeah, the Ada’s thing is good. Seems an upshot from Ukraine not crumbling.
You mean like he did the last time?
Trumps been quite public he’s only appointing loyalists so his crazy and vindictive stuff will happen this go round.
You have been quite vocal in supporting that.
So you seem to be lying here.
I'm not lying. Typical leftie, why don't you call me a racist and misogynist while you're at it?
I was referring to your "crash the economy" comment.
Trump didn't crash the entire economy (until his failure of leadership during COVID), but he did hurt American farmers badly enough that he felt the need to send them direct economic assistance. They still haven't recovered the marketshare they lost due to his tariffs.
And where did this topic of Trump appointees come from? No, I haven't been "quite vocal" in supporting it; though, in many cases, I do. And what is the lie I'm supposed to have told?
You claim to at this term will be like the last one.
The appointees already show that is wrong.
You yourself trumpet that this time Trump will be more wary of the deep state unlike last time.
Your appeal to last is prologue is something you yourself crow is false.
So are you lying when you make the argument it’ll be the same or when you gloat it’ll be different? Either way you are lying about something.
That's bull, twisting what I said. Why can't YOU be honest. I was referring to the economy, as I said, not his cabinet picks, who will be better this time.
His ability to effect the economy is based on his cabinet and political appointees!
Sarcastr0 is still in the anger phase, and contemplating 'transitioning' to bargaining.
He has picked virtually all unqualified, and some insane, cabinet picks. How can that be better?
This is interesting:
(from Instapundit)
ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF HIS DEATH, A FLASHBACK: John Lennon was a secret Republican, former assistant says. “The singer’s former assistant claims in a new documentary that Lennon was a Ronald Reagan fan and a conservative at the time of his death.”
Plus: “I also saw John embark in some really brutal arguments with my uncle, who’s an old-time communist… He enjoyed really provoking my uncle… Maybe he was being provocative… but it was pretty obvious to me he had moved away from his earlier radicalism. . . He was a very different person back in 1979 and ’80 than he’d been when he wrote ‘Imagine.’ By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy’s naivete.”
Well, it was George Harrison who wrote Taxman.
Imagine would have him excommunicated today.
He sure wasn’t a leftist in his later years. But not going to buy the rest of that.
Of interest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMOABV_zgrk
And let us not forget this suppressed picture of the haloed-one:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/congressional-black-caucus-buried-2005-obama-farrakhan-photo-photographer-says
The man is slime. But a gifted liar, I'll give him that. Much better than Kamala.
And let us not forget this suppressed picture of the haloed-one:
Links to a six-year-old story about a then-13-year-old photograph of a president who had not been in office for two years. Story bizarrely asserts that this photograph would have prevented Obama from being elected, had it been timely released in the 2008 campaign. Setting aside we were at that point a couple years past "grab 'em by the pussy" and so past any pretension that a single optical misstep could be politically devastating, the story seems to have memory-holed the whole Great Recession thing that ushered a change in leadership in 2008.
Left unspoken by this churlish MAGA-head is any explanation for why the photo, or the story, ought to besmirch Obama. (Trump's photos with Epstein and Hillary don't seem to have hurt him at all, in MAGA's eyes.) Farrakhan is, and was, a Black leader who lives in Chicago, not too far from Obama's own Chicago home. He is widely known by conservatives for his antisemitic and homophobic rhetoric, but his real sin in their eyes is his promotion of Black nationalism. In this, Farrakhan calls for a cultural revolution within the Black community that is not at all that different from what conservatives themselves frequently say about the Black community. But it's Islamic in orientation, so icky-icky, I guess.
BL sees no need to make patent what about this trumped-up scandal in FoxNews (apparently intended to distract from the Mueller investigation, which was at that time ongoing, or Trump's endorsement of a path for citizenship for Dreamers, or Brazil's upholding of a corruption conviction of da Silva, which paved the way for Bolsonaro to win the Brazilian general election later in 2018, among other things happening at the time) ought to make Obama seem like a "slime." He evidently expects that most commenters here will understand what he's getting at.
You are sliding into shitpost town.
The man is alone? Go get a room with Riva.
Alone->slime.
That’s quite a stretch, autocorrect!
Jon Stewart once made a video splicing together Obama's speeches to make him say "I am the leader of al-Qaeda". No better illustration of the absurdity of taking things out of context.