US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2809

On January 30 2016 07:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:


Serious false premises going on in this. Wherever you are getting your news does not mark to reality. Check out Wikipedia some time.

The economy was ruined -- USA is a GDP/employment growth standout amongst the world.
Nobody went to jail -- record fines from DOJ. Sorry the law doesn't make risky shadow banking a jailable offense.
Debt larger than ever -- 100% GDP isn't that bad, and the T-bill markets suggest we could go much higher.
He got a Nobel piece prize for nothing -- what about the Iran deal? We aren't nearly-at-war with them anymore and we have their Uranium.
His foreign policy actually managed to fuck up the world worse than Bush ever could -- like what? Obama isn't in charge of weak Arab state institutions. USA does not have to govern the Arab world. Obama has wisely limited the USA-MIL to only engaging targets we can actually take on (see the 25,000 sorties against ISIS); instead of tasking them with building up Arab governance like Bush2 did (see Bush2's sorry effort at building a new Iraq).

Do black people magically live better now then before? No. -- I shouldn't have to spell this out but the medicaid expansion in ACA helped a lot of people near the poverty line.
Do hispanics live better? No -- Actually the Obama immigration enforcement slowdown has improved many lives and kept a lot of families together. Don't discount people getting to keep their family members in country.

// And on the JFK thing. This flier was found near the parade at which he was assasinated. Do you recognize any of the rhetoric?

http://www.claireconner.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/300-wanted-for-treason-best1.jpg

On January 30 2016 07:32 frazzle wrote:

TBF, apart from his injunctioned effort to halt deportations on a subset of illegal immigrants, hasn't the raw quantity of deportations under Obama been higher than any previous President? This when immigration from Mexico has swung to a net negative thanks to the economic downturn at the start of his Presidency. Of course, listening to a Republican presidential candidate you might think Obama is bussing in narcos on Air Force One himself.

On January 30 2016 06:38 zeo wrote:

The point I was trying to make is you can say Obama was a so-so president, but for him to actually end up on currency? Really?

JFK did more for civil rights than Obama can ever dream about doing, and he still had an average approval rating of over 45% among republicans. Thats why he's on the 50 cent coin. What has Obama actually done? The economy was ruined, nobody went to jail, debt larger than ever. He got a Nobel piece prize for nothing, his foreign policy actually managed to fuck up the world worse than Bush ever could.

Do black people magically live better now then before? No. Do hispanics live better? No. Gay marriage? He was against gay marriage in his first term, still basically the legal system is going around in circles. Oh, he says he is working on it but in the end all he has done is fail.

Come on people, what has he done to deserve being on currency? Obamacare?

On January 30 2016 07:42 Ravianna26 wrote:


Not to mention Obama has not denounced the black supremacist group BLM which has encouraged racism towards whites.

On January 30 2016 07:45 Plansix wrote:

The bait is strong with this one. Strong.

On January 30 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:

As someone who deals with frivolously counter claims to debt collection, title clearing and like every other dumb type of “sovereign citizen” filing against our cleints, I can respect that. But I am not convinced the collection of this information will increase the number of frivolously claims by any significant number. They passed a number of laws in my state regarding banks and reposed property that people claimed would cause a “flood gate” of litigation. I have yet to see it.

On January 30 2016 07:42 Ravianna26 wrote:


Not to mention Obama has not denounced the black supremacist group BLM which has encouraged racism towards whites.

Jason Flanery – the St. Louis city police officer who killed VonDerrit Myers Jr. – was high on cocaine as well as drunk when he smashed his police vehicle into a parked car at 6:17 a.m. on December 19, according to Missouri State Highway lab results released on January 27.

Two days earlier, on January 25, Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce charged Flanery with two misdemeanors – Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and leaving the scene of an accident – after receiving a lab report on Flanery’s Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC). Though his blood was sampled hours after the accident, he had a BAC reading of .117, according to the statement. The legal limit is 0.08.

St. Louis Police Chief Samuel Dotson told The American that he then asked the lab to test Flanery’s blood for narcotics, acting on intelligence that he had received that Flanery used cocaine. The positive test results for cocaine came back on January 27.

Now Joyce will charge Flanery with driving under influence of alcohol and drugs, which is still only a misdemeanor.

Joyce told The American that Flanery’s toxicology results from December 19 have no legal bearing on his actions on October 8, 2014, when he fatally shot Myers. However, she said, this does point to the need to test officers for drugs and alcohol after an officer-involved shooting.

Dotson told The American that the police union opposed him, but that he was working on issuing a new policy that orders toxicology screenings for officers involved in officer-involved shootings. He said he hoped to make this announcement within days.

On January 30 2016 07:52 cLutZ wrote:


The reason that it isn't really speculation is because there is already a huge number of employment discrimination lawsuits, and hiring practices are already molded to try and get "pleasing" numbers (aka a quota system) at a lat of big employers. I'd actually be in favor of more transparency if it was essentially "traded" for a more sane burden of proof in employment discrimination law overall (along the lines of eliminating the disparate impact test and making plaintiffs show a discriminatory cause).

On January 30 2016 05:59 zeo wrote:
He has been the most divisive president the US has had since the civil war and it will take decades to get one half of the country working with the other half again. Thanks Obama.

On January 30 2016 03:04 Seuss wrote:


Cruz is probably going to fade. He's cut from the same cloth as Huckabee and Santorum, only he's even less likable than either of them. Trump is also competing with Cruz far better than McCain and Romney before him.

The race at this point is a matter of when, and if, an establishment frontrunner emerges. If the circular firing squad continues past New Hamphire Trump is the probable nominee.

But here’s the real jaw-dropper from the film. In 1986, when the NRA was first feeling its power as a lobbying organisation, it strong-armed the US Congress into passing a law that forbade the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the government branch that regulates guns, from storing its information on computers. Thirty years later, that law remains on the books. In Under the Gun, we see what the inside of a typical ATF office looks like: mountains of boxed papers. Most background checks are routine, but if a potential gun buyer needs to be investigated beyond the usual screening procedures, the ‘check’ consists of some poor slave of a bureaucrat hunting through the files – a process that would take mereminutes if it were done on computer. With the current system, it takes days. And if the check isn’t completed within 72 hours, the person in question can simply buy the gun without it.

On January 30 2016 06:20 CannonsNCarriers wrote:

Obama doesn't hate you.

when he accuses Republicans of being racists, bigots, bitter clingers, un-American, says we want dirty air and dirty water, etc.

For the first two years of his Presidency, Obama was literally playing on Easy-Mode... and he still managed to get almost nothing accomplished

On January 30 2016 08:44 Cowboy64 wrote:

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Good one.

Obama definitely hates the conservatives in this country. He's been slamming us since he came on the scene. Now if you happen to agree with his politics it might just look like he's "calling it how it is" when he accuses Republicans of being racists, bigots, bitter clingers, un-American, says we want dirty air and dirty water, etc. The Democrats eat that stuff up because they are on the other side, but to us on the receiving end of our own President's constant insults, it gets a little old. Especially when professional victim Obama pretends like no one ever had any opposition before he came along.

Is he aware that we've had Presidents assassinated before? Is he aware of the accusations that Reagan had Alzheimer's and that Nancy was a psychopath? Is he aware of major celebrities on major networks saying Bush2 should be raped, murdered, was responsible for 9/11, had stolen two elections?

Obama had it easy. His approval ratings among Republicans when he got elected were in the mid-40s. His opposition in 2008, McCain, lectured his own voters about how wonderful a man Obama was, how much of a patriot he was, how great his family was. The only real, public opposition to Obama when he got into office was 4-words from Rush Limbaugh, and Rush is still being raked over the coals for saying it. 99% of celebrities and media figures were open supporters of his. His party also had a majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate.

For the first two years of his Presidency, Obama was literally playing on Easy-Mode... and he still managed to get almost nothing accomplished. At this point, he deserves any hate he gets. He's more than earned it.

Of course, I'm just one of those racist, bigot, homophobic, bitter clingers who is un-American and just a relic of the past, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

On January 30 2016 08:44 Cowboy64 wrote:

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Good one.

Obama definitely hates the conservatives in this country. He's been slamming us since he came on the scene. Now if you happen to agree with his politics it might just look like he's "calling it how it is" when he accuses Republicans of being racists, bigots, bitter clingers, un-American, says we want dirty air and dirty water, etc.

The Democrats eat that stuff up because they are on the other side, but to us on the receiving end of our own President's constant insults, it gets a little old. Especially when professional victim Obama pretends like no one ever had any opposition before he came along.

Is he aware that we've had Presidents assassinated before? Is he aware of the accusations that Reagan had Alzheimer's and that Nancy was a psychopath?

The Obama administration confirmed for the first time on Friday that Hillary Clinton’s unsecured home server contained some of the US government’s most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification. The revelation comes just three days before the Iowa presidential nominating caucuses in which Clinton is a candidate.

The State Department will release its next batch of emails from Clinton’s time as secretary of state later Friday. But the Associated Press has learned seven email chains are being withheld in full because they contain information deemed to be “top secret”.

The 37 pages include messages recently described by a key intelligence official as concerning so-called “special access programs” – a highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs such as drone strikes or government eavesdropping.

Department officials wouldn’t describe the substance of the emails or say if Clinton sent any herself. They also wouldn’t disclose whether any of the documents reflected information that was classified at the time of transmission, but indicated that the agency’s Diplomatic Security and Intelligence and Research bureaus have begun looking into that question.

“The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information,” State Department spokesman John Kirby told the AP, describing the decision to withhold documents in full as “not unusual”. That means they won’t be published online with the rest of the documents, even with blacked-out boxes.

Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has insisted she never sent or received information on her personal email account that was classified at the time. No emails released so far were stamped “CLASSIFIED” or “TOP SECRET”, but reviewers previously had designated more than 1,000 messages at lower classification levels for public release.

Friday’s will be the first at the top secret level.

On January 30 2016 05:54 Plansix wrote:

Yes, but does collecting that information and going through the thought process harm the business? Many business don’t do what you just did. And there is no specific information about employees released to the public, only broad categories. I don’t make mistakes in my files, but I still audit them just to make sure.

On January 30 2016 08:28 Cowboy64 wrote:

Huckabee and Santorum have superficial similarities with Cruz, but it's mostly just the appeal to evangelicals. Huckabee especially is more of a "big-government Republican".

Cruz is extremely popular in the GOP base and will probably be around for a long time. Apparently he is pretty well-loved in Texas also (I believe the most popular politician in Texas period, but I could be wrong here).