jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (142 posts)

What is your opinion of President Obama, the President, not the man?

  1. jackclee lm profile image74
    jackclee lmposted 12 days ago

    It has been almost a year since he left office. Though he seems to stick around DC and make his comments occasionally about policies...
    The question I have for all is this - what is your opinion of this President in his 8 years in office...?
    Overall, has he been good or bad for America?
    Please use facts to back up your opinion.

    As a Conservative, I have strong opinions of the Obama Administration, and the damage he has caused. I realize it is a matter of debate. No one person or administration is all bad or all good...
    I want to hear some opinion especially the ones defending his actions...
    What good has he done for the US?

    The common perception of even Republicans, is that he is a good family man, a husband, a father and a role model...just that they disagree with his progressive agenda...
    Let's keep the two side separate. One can be a great father and husband in his personal life and be ineffective or destructive in his work... the two are mutually exclusive.

    How would you rate his job performance? And why?
    1 - 5, 1 being the best.

    1. promisem profile image93
      promisemposted 12 days ago in reply to this

      His average rank by presidential historians -- from conservative to liberal -- is 17th overall among all presidents. That's a fact.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica … ted_States

      1. jackclee lm profile image74
        jackclee lmposted 12 days ago in reply to this

        Yes, but ranking rise and fall due to circumstance and time. The longer the timeframe, the more stable the ranking. Some of his policies have long lasting effect way past his presidentcy. I will just name a few...
        the ACA or Obamacare has yet to play out...
        The Iran Nuclear deal
        North Korea Missiles testing...
        The national debt...
        Illegal immigration open borders...
        Anti terrorism
        NSA spying
        IRS scandal
        Climate Change and EPA over reach
        And many more...

        Time will tell my friend.

        1. promisem profile image93
          promisemposted 12 days ago in reply to this

          All common complaints of biased conservatives and not the majority of Americans or presidential historians.

          1. jackclee lm profile image74
            jackclee lmposted 12 days ago in reply to this

            Right, conservatives are biased yet NYT and Washington Post and NBC and CBS and CNN are all main stream...give me a break...even millennials are not buying it.
            You can continue to believe what you believe about conservatives but one thing you need to know. Conservatives are Constitutionalist and they do not follow blindly one party. They rely on the Constitution which is foremost the rule of the land.

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 12 days ago in reply to this

              "Conservatives are Constitutionalist and they do not follow blindly one party. They rely on the Constitution which is foremost the rule of the land"

              Jack lee, just more bull Shyte? Gosh, you conservatives are so full of it.

              You pretend to want impartial commentary.

              I think Obama was an effective President, if not ranking among the greatest. He would have done a hell of a lot better without the obstruction from the GOP and the Right.

              So, your man, Trump, can expect at least as many roadblocks..

              1. jackclee lm profile image74
                jackclee lmposted 12 days ago in reply to this

                First of all,  he is not my man and not my first choice by a long shot.
                Second, I have criticized Trump on many occasions when he over step his power as President...
                Third, if his policies are sound, I will support them, even if it cost me personally in tax dollars...
                For example, I support rebuilding our infrastructure and building the wall...

                You are the blind obedient party member of the Democrats who can't see how policies thst can help all people are best...like bring jobs back from overseas...and energy drilling and pipelines...
                Obstruction is the only thing the Democrats have and ever will have.
                They have tried the progressive path and look what they brought  -
                Bankrupt our treasury with little to show for it.
                Sad...

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 12 days ago in reply to this

                  On a scale of 1to 5, I rank him somewhere between 3.5-4, as I mostly agree with the assessment of historians.

                  I, too, support rebuilding our infrastructure, same as I did when it was proposed by Obama, Bernie, and other Democrats during the Obama administration. Republicans didn't want to spend the money then. If Trump can get them to do it now, then that will be a major achievement that I will happily support and acknowledge.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image74
                    jackclee lmposted 12 days ago in reply to this

                    Let's get the record straight. The money of nearly 1 trillion was earmarked for infrastructure but was miss approprated by the Obama Administration on keeping government union jobs...
                    Obama laughed at one point saying those shovel ready jobs were not so shovel ready...after 6 years into his administration and the money spent...

                2. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 12 days ago in reply to this

                  "First of all,  he is not my man and not my first choice by a long shot."
                  Well, you seem to support him as if he were your second cousin
                  ----------------------------------
                  "Second, I have criticized Trump on many occasions when he over step his power as President..."
                  You, criticize Trump, where was that?
                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  "Third, if his policies are sound, I will support them, even if it cost me personally in tax dollars..".
                  I am waiting and so far there has been just disappointment
                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  "For example, I support rebuilding our infrastructure and building the wall..."

                  The "wall" is ridiculous. I thought that he was going to get the Mexican government to pay for it, haven't heard much about that lately.

                  As for building the infrastructure, if it were such a good idea why didn't the GOP sign on to it during Obama's term?

                  Is it now viable for conservatives only because Trump, a Republican, proposes it?

                  Here is what I think. Trump employs the old pretend to be a populist to dupe naïve voters trick.
                  I have to see it to believe it. The idea of infrastructure rebuilding contradicts fundamental conservative philosophy. It is not the kind of thing that Republicans support. They support massive tax cuts for the  rich, AKA, "job creators" with the hope that it will trickle down to the undeserving rabble through their need to increase employment opportunities. But, there is too much benefit from infrastructure building for working and middle classes for the GOP to ever support such an idea. So, it was just another Trump lie or exaggeration.

                  There has really been no real practical path for bringing back industries who under the very rules of capitalism are going to operate to decrease their costs. Trump has yet to convince me. Trump and the GOP gives me little reason to be confident in the course of this nation at this time. And YES, I do not trust GOP and conservatives, give me a reason to think otherwise?
                  -------------------------------------
                  "Sad..."
                  You imitate Trump in this aspect as well, he always says this.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image74
                    jackclee lmposted 12 days ago in reply to this

                    Right, I am a Trump supporter. That is why I didn't vote for him..

                    The GOP help passed  a 900 billion infrastructure bill under Obama. Go look it up.
                    He didn't use it for infrastructure...that was the problem...those shovel ready jobs were np where to be found...

                    Your idea about conservatives are all wrong.
                    We don't object to any government spending, just the wrong  kind of spending that is not mandated by our constitution. We support defending our borders, one of the enumerated power of the Constitution along with strong national defense...

                    The kind of spending I object is crony capitalism such as the omnibus bailout bill, the welfare state of foodstamps. I prefer Red cross, and United way and other private charities such as Catholic Charities to help the poor and the people with disabilities...

                    There is not just one solution, that of big government programs. There are many ways to skin the cat...

            2. promisem profile image93
              promisemposted 12 days ago in reply to this

              Yep, everyone is biased except for conservatives.

    2. Ken Burgess profile image83
      Ken Burgessposted 12 days ago in reply to this

      He was young, not since Kennedy have we had someone who was closer in age and outlook to a college student than a established Professor.

      What difference does that make?

      Lots, he connected to the younger voters, and younger ideals & outlooks more than that of an experienced and tested older individual who had become more cynical and worldly would have.

      Obama was the Kennedy of his generation, without the Assassination to make him both a Martyr and 'Frozen in time' young, energetic, challenging the 'powers that be' President that Kennedy will always be seen as.

      Unlike Kennedy, Obama was in office long enough to learn that the establishment wasn't going to adjust or be drastically altered, it was he who was going to have to adjust, compromise, and let go of many of his ideals and dreams.

      So while he took to the media, to talk-shows in particular in ways no other President had, and was a cult-of-personality President, he was also forced to become the front-man for the establishment, like Bush before him, and Clinton before that.

      As for what he accomplished, top on that list is the ACA (just as many people favor it as who despise it) which has lost the allure of the pretty wrapping paper it came in, and now more and more people are realizing it to be a government (Big-Pharma, Insurance, etc.) money grab and bureaucratic nightmare (as anything the government takes over becomes) than anything else.

      All else is IMO just more of the same.
      Libya got knocked off and is a disaster area which now allows refugees to flow unchecked from the African continent into Europe.
      Syria is an unmitigated catastrophe that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, and still counting.
      Afghanistan and Iraq still roll on as warzones.
      We almost got stuck with TPP, which would have made it far easier for jobs/businesses to flow out of America.  That would have been a big negative on his resume years down the road...

      When you take a step back, and look at the course this nation, its foreign policies, and its economic growth in and objective fashion... its like Bush handed things off to Obama, and almost everything kept right on course with little alteration.  Because essentially, since the mid-Clinton years, and NAFTA, Glass-Steagall, etc. the power of the Presidency has been largely forfeited to a cabal of Congressmen that are bought and paid for by the corporations and foreign nations that are filling their pockets and the 'Deep State' a cool name for what otherwise means long tenured Bureaucrats and Military lifers that once they are embedded into D.C. they are like ticks burrowed under the skin, you can't get them out, and you can't take back power and control from them.

      1. jackclee lm profile image74
        jackclee lmposted 12 days ago in reply to this

        I agree with most of you said except, he believed in most of his progressive policies. The people behind the scene pulling the strings are the same people Democrat or Republican controlled Congress...
        Obama took the mantle of a progressive and doubled downed, where as Clinton, triangulated when he was rejected in the mid term...that is why Bill Clinton was a better politican than Obama but a sad case personally.

        That said, his damage to our nation is long term for years to come and I also believe worldwide...
        His failure to stop ISIS, lead indirectly to the refugee crisis in Syria...and else where. You can argue that it was our failure in the Iraq war that started this path...but he was president for 8 years and had plenty of opportunity to change. Instead, he pursued the same Bush policies just reduced in strength...Bush lite.
        My prediction is that he will always have as his legacy being the first black President but his Obamacare will be a yoke around his neck for years to come...
        He will be know for the president who brought single payer health insurance to America for good or for ill...
        He also created an atmosphere that set back race relations for a decade, just the opposite what people expected. You would think electing and relecting a black president would help race relations in America...just the opposite.

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 12 days ago in reply to this

          He also created an atmosphere that set back race relations for a decade, just the opposite what people expected. You would think electing and relecting a black president would help race relations in America...just the opposite

          You have to be quite naïve to think that an American institution like racism was going to just go away with Obama's election. Cell phone cameras probably play a greater role in simply letting people see what most of us already know.

          1. jackclee lm profile image74
            jackclee lmposted 12 days ago in reply to this

            I agree. I support body camera on all police officers on duty. It could have helped in the Ferguson case...don't you think?

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 12 days ago in reply to this

              Yes, indeed, I think that bodycams should be standard equipment. But I have run into conservatives on this forum that say that such an accouterment would be an unnecessary impediment for the law officer. The idea I am getting is that conservatives are content will all those wooly heads beaten without their being accountability for their actions or recourse by the citizen/victim. As long, of course, as they are just wooly heads....

              This is the attitude that I am garnishing from the Session's Justice Department. "Law and Order', and cops are being put upon by even the suggestion that major cities review police policies and procedures relative to the communities they serve.

              More 'good cop, bad cop' with the Trump administration advocating for the 'bad cop' scenario.

              1. jackclee lm profile image74
                jackclee lmposted 12 days ago in reply to this

                No one is advocating for bad cops...
                The cameras will work to benefit both sides, when there is abuse by cops, the camera will proof it.
                When there is wrong doing on the part of arrestees, it will show that too.

                I am conservative and I am pragmatic, and I support body cameras for all police. Does thst sirprise you?

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 12 days ago in reply to this

                  Kudos to you for being rational.  Not everyone on these forums has a rational view of body cams.  As far as I know, opposition has come only from the conservative side.  I don't know of any liberals who are against body cams for every police officer.

                2. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 12 days ago in reply to this

                  Does 'that' surprise me? Yes, it does. I am not just surprised but astonished!!

              2. GA Anderson profile image84
                GA Andersonposted 12 days ago in reply to this

                Credence2, you are so far out of line with this one that you have firmly planted yourself among the ranks of those that you like to criticize the most vehemently - partisan zealots.

                "The idea I am getting is that conservatives are content will all those wooly heads beaten without their being accountability for their actions or recourse by the citizen/victim.  As long, of course, as they are just wooly heads...."

                Besides the slander of us Conservatives, you have also diminished your own credibility with such an outlandish statement. "Wooly head?" What's next, a fist-bump greeting of wahs-ssup my .......? 

                What if that shoe were put on the other foot. What if, well no, you have thoughtfully pissed me off with this one, but even so, I won't use a fitting example. to go where you went.

                And for your "Sessions" thought, it is "garnering" not garnishing." Although, considering the substance of your comment, maybe you are "garnishing" what you are getting from Session's DOJ.

                Geesh! At least try to get the small stuff right. Then you can work your way back  to ... geez, there I go again. These snark attacks are really getting hard to resist.

                Come on bud. Take a breath. Step away from the edge. We can help you.

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 12 days ago in reply to this

                  Credence2, you are so far out of line with this one that you have firmly planted yourself among the ranks of those that you like to criticize the most vehemently - partisan zealots.

                  Alright, let's have a look.
                  ------------------------------------------------
                  "The idea I am getting is that conservatives are content will all those wooly heads beaten without their being accountability for their actions or recourse by the citizen/victim.  As long, of course, as they are just wooly heads...."

                  The attacks on BLM, the problems with Stop and Frisk, etc,  it is clear that these sorts of issues have a racial component. Most AA will tell you that there are issues with the police conduct in their communities, you are not saying that they are all imagining it, would you?  We all would like to think the problem is universal and neutral, but it is not.
                  ----------------------------------------
                  Besides the slander of us Conservatives, you have also diminished your own credibility with such an outlandish statement. "Wooly head?" What's next, a fist-bump greeting of wahs-ssup my .......? 

                  I thought that you were purple? Again the fact that the problem and issues bear far more heavily on the black and minority community than otherwise. "Wooly head" is for emphasis.
                  -------------------------------
                  What if that shoe were put on the other foot. What if, well no, you have thoughtfully pissed me off with this one, but even so, I won't use a fitting example. to go where you went.

                  How do you put the shoe on the other foot? You have to look at the big picture sometimes, GA.
                  ------------------------
                  And for your "Sessions" thought, it is "garnering" not garnishing." Although, considering the substance of your comment, maybe you are "garnishing" what you are getting from Session's DOJ.

                  My spell check went awry, you can sue me. Cmon, GA, Sessions has an agenda in regards to the issue, it is being screamed from the treetops.
                  ------------------------
                  Geesh! At least try to get the small stuff right. Then you can work your way back  to ... geez, there I go again. These snark attacks are really getting hard to resist.

                  You diminish the ramification of this controversy on those more likely to be affected, as you don't and can't sit where I do from a visual perspective.
                  -------------------------
                  Come on bud. Take a breath. Step away from the edge. We can help you.

                  I caught my breath, thanks....

                2. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 11 days ago in reply to this

                  May I politely point out that what you view as over the top is, in my view, quite a mild reaction considering the years of abuse heaped upon minorities by the police and the justice system.  Further, your taking credence to task seems a little one-sided.  Yes, I have seen you admonish conservatives, but it's rarely for something as mild as what credence just wrote.  I know you pride yourself on your objectivity, and for the most part, you're pretty good at it.  However, when you err, you pretty much always err on the "conservative" side which I suppose is natural, since that is your bent.

                  I've seen some pretty nasty racially-based statements from regular posters on these forums that haven't provoked a peep from other conservatives who I believe don't feel the same way but either don't notice or don't care enough to say anything.  That must be hard to take for someone who is a member of the minority group on the receiving end.  It galls me no end and I'm a white lady.

                  Just my two cents.  :-)

                  1. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 11 days ago in reply to this

                    Panther, in one word, thanks

                    "It ain't easy being me"
                                                        Rodney Dangerfield

                  2. GA Anderson profile image84
                    GA Andersonposted 11 days ago in reply to this

                    PrettyPanther, I try to follow the advice of the adage that there is no gain in stating the obvious. I think that sometimes, stating the obvious can even be detrimental. (even when politely offered)

                    But, to be clear, that point is directed at your notice that "...I've seen some pretty nasty racially-based statements from regular posters on these forums that haven't provoked a peep from other conservatives who I believe don't feel the same way..." and you will also have noticed that I haven't addressed any of those poster's comments at all. Or, if I did slip, it would have been a martini night when my snark got the best of me.

                    Another bromide that I have found useful is Mark Twain's; "Never argue with idiots, they will bring you down to their level - and then beat you with experience." I think idiots can be pretty broadly defined. Hence my non-engagement with their comments.

                    With that explained, the obvious - that shouldn't need to be stated - is that Cred isn't an idiot, but to apply the statement he did to "Conservatives" in general, (when I am sure he knows he should have narrowed his scope), and to use, what I viewed as an unnecessary pejorative term to emphasize, (his explanation), his point was out of line.

                    Further, both his and your reference to the treatment Blacks endure in today's society have absolutely nothing to do with my response, nor should it have had anything to do with Cred's characterization of who typically opposed police body cams. 

                    Once more, to be clear, my ire was at his broad brush accusation that was turbocharged by an intentionally insulting descriptor, (wooly heads). My opinion is that the folks he is talking about are the fringe of conservatism, the, (newly coined),  Alt-Right, or even Right-wingers. This is an error he has been committing with some frequency, of late. An error, (I feel), that he should correct. He is self-proclaimed as a progressive, I don't label him a Left-winger, or Socialist. I think there is a difference.

                    Had he narrowed his focus, and, used a less denigrating descriptor, (to me it is like name-calling, if that is a needed tactic, then your point is too weak to support your contention), then I would probably have agreed with him; re. as to who usually objects to police body cams, but he didn't. And in that lack his comment was totally off-base. In my opinion of course.

                    Your "two-cents" was politely offered, and it is good to see you come to his defense, but I must ask; with this explanation, do you still feel I was "over the top?"

                    ps. Cred, I am hopeful you see this response. It would also be my answer to your response to my original "over-the-top comment ;-)

                    GA

        2. Ken Burgess profile image83
          Ken Burgessposted 11 days ago in reply to this

          Jackclee,

          You think too much happened by accident, it did not, most of what happened was by design, that's what I mean when I infer the term 'front man'.

          "His failure to stop ISIS, lead indirectly to the refugee crisis in Syria."

          We weaponized and supported the 'separatists' that became ISIS.
          Benghazi happened because 'we' were involved in a 'black-ops' that was shipping Libyan anti-aircraft and anti-armor weapons to 'rebels' in Syria.

          "Instead, he pursued the same Bush policies just reduced in strength...Bush lite. "

          Its like you see what is going on, but you fail to connect those last couple of dots, yes he basically continued all the Bush policies, all those things when he ran he said he would stop... like Gitmo, like Iraq (and by extension that would mean NOT starting new wars in Libya and Syria),  like not just signing off on NSA's powers, but expanding them, when he ran of shutting them down... you know, the very thing the media was going beserk about when Bush instituted them.

          There is a reason for that, its because the President really doesn't have a whole lot of control over what America does, and we are seeing this even more with Trump, especially when overnight he flipped his tune from 'we're getting out of Syria' to 'we're bombing Syria to teach them a lesson' ... and from ... "I'd rather be friends with Russia than enemies, to, we are placing severe sanctions on Russia'

          Sure, there are policies the President influences, things he can curtail, but its not really up to him.  Much as I am sure he would have liked it to be.

          "He also created an atmosphere that set back race relations for a decade, just the opposite what people expected. "

          That I agree with, and that I have to credit to him, he campaigned on promises of being able to bring us together and heal the nation, but his every effort seemed to work to make the strife in this nation between races, political parties, and even religions, greater than it has been at any other time in my lifetime.

          1. jackclee lm profile image74
            jackclee lmposted 11 days ago in reply to this

            Very insightful...
            The Power That Be is pulling the strings no matter who sits in the White House.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image83
              Ken Burgessposted 11 days ago in reply to this

              Essentially, things have shifted in this direction since Bill Clinton.

              Consider how Reagan was able to go in there and force through changes that the bulk of the Congress seemingly wanted to oppose.  Of course there was much more teamwork between the Exec office and Congress in those days.

              That changed during the Clinton era, the Clintons, were coerced and duped into a lot of things, especially by Alan Greenspan who essentially told them what they would do, or he would tank the economy on them and have them ousted.  Then Congress Impeached him, despite the fact that he was essentially a yes man to whatever they put on his desk, like NAFTA, like Glass-Steagall. All these various powers were asserted over the Presidency during the 90s, and the Office has never regained its authority.

              Bush to a degree (Cheney actually) gained a little of it back, but essentially it is those long tenured Congressmen and women, and those lifers in the Halls of D.C. that are 'running the show'.

              Which is understandable in our system, there are no term limits on Congressmen.  So it is far more advantageous for 'lobbyists' to buy off Senators and Representatives, then they can own them for decades, where as a President you can only control for 4 or 8 years.

              If you control enough Congressmen, you essentially control the government.

          2. GA Anderson profile image84
            GA Andersonposted 11 days ago in reply to this

            Hi Ken, Now I don't want to get into your complete theory, but I would offer support for two of your points.

            I also think Benghazi was due to the arms shipments to the Syrian rebels. I remember when supporting anti-Assad rebels was the mantra of the day. I also remember the cautions that we couldn't really know who the real anti-Assad rebels were, and that they were folding to the Al Qaeda-based rebel groups daily. Meaning the weapons we gave the 'good' rebels, were being turned over to the 'bad', (ISIS), rebels, almost as soon as they were received. So I agree, we, in effect, armed ISIS. And, our efforts to empower the good rebels, because Americans were demanding we do something, are the same efforts that armed and empowered ISIS.

            In effect, I must agree that Pres. Obama must bear the blame for this. He had strong opposition, (at least from the news stories I saw),  to supplying the rebels from his military advisers, but he chose instead to listen to his political advisers who were listening to the public voice instead of the military one.

            The other point I agree with was the expansion of the NSA and Patriot Act powers.  My view is that this was a pure power-grabbing over-reach that denied there were any other viable options. An "the end justified the means" argument that Pres. Obama should have flatly rejected. In my opinion, if you need that argument for justification, then it is almost never the right choice.

            However, you know me by now. I can't offer two agreements without at least one disagreement. And I disagree with your contention that he, (Pres. Obama), didn't have the power to resist the machine. A simple vocal "No" to the Patriot Act" expansion would have been monumental. It would have provoked a firestorm of public condemnation that would have - as its best effect, brought the Patriot Act powers into the public forum. Consider this; I think the Patriot Act is a terrible abrogation of our rights, but, do you think the general public has a clue what the Patriot Act does, except for, 'let the government listen in on terrorists?"

            GA

            1. Ken Burgess profile image83
              Ken Burgessposted 11 days ago in reply to this

              GA

              Things are never as simple as I put in type, of course, everything discussed is always more complicated than can be covered here. 

              In order to go further in this discussion, lets consider....

              What is the Federal Reserve?

              What is ExxonMobil?

              Answering these types of questions (really understanding the history, the where, why, when and who of it all) makes things easier to understand.

              If you understood the federal government from the highest levels, or the military, or both, and by understand, I should say, if you had actually worked in, or dealt with federal administrations (EPA, DEA, etc.), or the military (Pentagon, 18th ABC) at the highest levels, or near the highest levels, this would give you insight into some of the truths that you are not going to find in NY Times articles or from CNN.

              There is a level of awareness that you get from dealing with it, that isn't conveyed through an interview on Democracy Now, or from an article in the NY Times.  I have never liked the NYT BTW, a good source of news is the WSJ, a good source of propaganda mixed with a tinge of real news is the NYT.

              Anyways, some more questions... who is the funder, founder, and Chairman of the Open Society Foundations?

              What organizations/groups does the OSF fund?

              Track those answers down, and you will find many different names, and different causes being funded by one individual.  And that person is currently funding the majority of opposition to the President, in the streets, in D.C., and in the schools.

              Way off topic now.  Your review of events in regards to Benghazi is mostly correct.  The Muslim Brotherhood had a hand in those events, and the distribution of those weapons.  Almost nothing of the truth was ever published by an American news source, I stopped reviewing the matter a couple years back, but up to that point, nothing I saw or heard.

              Looking at what occurred on the night of Sep 11, 2012, and moving forward...
              1) No standards adhered to - no Security detachment to protect the Ambassador, no standard Gov issue vehicles, inadequate compound security measures, etc.
              2) Just before the attack, Ambassador Stevens had finished meeting with a Turkish Ambassador (at around 9 pm).
              3) On Sep 14, the Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … had docked in Turkey.” and then "more than 80 per cent of the ship's cargo…has been moved into Syria." The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.
              4) Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi’s stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.
              5) The ship’s captain was ”a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government, he also has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
              6) A Libyan militia known as the February 17 Brigade, had been charged with providing local security to the consulate in Libya. This was what the State Department was depending on to protect Ambassador Stevens. The 'commander' of the February 17 Brigade, Fawzi Bukatef, is a member of Libya’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.
              7) It is the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Syria that received at least part of the weapons shipment. In a NY Times article from June, it was stated "that a small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood."
              8) The origins of the 'riots' and attacks on our Embassies began in Egypt, which was then under the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood. In each step, from where and when the riots began, to who was supposed to be providing protection to the Ambassador, to the Captain of the ship, to those who received the weapons... the Muslim Brotherhood had a presence in every step.

              What is the Muslim Brotherhood, what was its relationship to the Obama Administration?

              1. profile image60
                Jack freelandposted 10 days ago in reply to this

                Wow.  Alex Jones would be proud.

                1. Ken Burgess profile image83
                  Ken Burgessposted 8 days ago in reply to this

                  I don't know Alex jones, but I know what is real, and what is a load of crap.

              2. Misfit Chick profile image91
                Misfit Chickposted 9 days ago in reply to this

                I really wish you would have put that much detailed research into Trump's past.

                1. Ken Burgess profile image83
                  Ken Burgessposted 8 days ago in reply to this

                  What was there to research, the choice was either him or Clinton, America got off easy. 

                  Trump is tough to listen to, truly, I dread 3 more years of his speeches.  But on the other hand, he has forced the D.C. train off tracks for the moment, and gave the country a breath of fresh air after 30 years of deplorable decision making... striking TPP, and reversing a few EOs, has gone a long ways to reversing the trend of jobs flying out of the country to foreign lands at an ever faster pace.

                  1. Misfit Chick profile image91
                    Misfit Chickposted 8 days ago in reply to this

                    "gave the country a breath of fresh air after 30 years of deplorable decision making..."

                    Your version of 'fresh air' and mine are not even sort of comparable.

                    Why did the carnage in Charlottesville happen? Because we lie to ourselves. http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/article166952582.html

                    We saw this crap in Portland and Seattle - including shootings. But, I have no words for this other than TRUMP PROVOKED THIS. And I hold this against every damn person who voted for him.

                    Lets hope this is the end of this crap.

                    Idiots.

    3. Misfit Chick profile image91
      Misfit Chickposted 12 days ago in reply to this

      Obama was elected because he had potential to change things: the same reason Trump was elected. I know most people have completely forgotten the 2008 Dem fight between Hillary & Obama. The GOP was laughing at them, then - in the same way the Dems were laughing at the GOP dealing with Trump this time around - until Trump won.

      Obama was supposed to be a centrist who would create bipartisan policies - not be the same old kind of politician who catered to one party or the other. He failed for a few reasons (how much he 'failed' is a matter of perspective); but not because he was incapable of doing a good job - but because he was a black man who had no business mingling in the business of white superiority.

      Obama ended up having to play the 'black man part' - MIND his P's & Q's; and say & do absolutely everything PERFECTLY. Any deviation from 'GOP established norms' was ramped up, hyped & smeared with as much stink as could possibly be added to it. Obama could NEVER have gotten away with talking at people the way Trump has.

      Honestly, we will never know just what kind of president Obama COULD have been without GOP fear tactics and brainwashing propaganda. They know how to manipulate their base; and its their own damn fault that they have Trump to deal with, now. Its not like he was their 1st choice.

      The GOP treated Obama like sh*t from day one, obstructing every little thing they could & blowing up every opportuntiy they could. One example: they held out for a YEARish on approving Obama's Supreme Court pick - what a slap in the face to the American people (a majority without question) who elected him.

      Obamacare is the disfunctional way it is because of a LACK of GOP interest in helping to develop it. GOP are completely uninterested in what 'we the people' are telling them; and absolutely REFUSE to work across the divide.

      Obama gets a 'B' for effort; and for him and his family doing such a damn good job of representing this country, ANYWAY.

      The Dems get a freaking 'D' for forcing him to stay within their just-as-innane political BS crap - and turning him into a normal politician.

      The GOP gets and 'F' for completely disrespecting BOTH Obama and those of us who voted for him in the way they talked about him AND acted towards him.

      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13650910.jpg

      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13650911.jpg

      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13650919.jpg

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 12 days ago in reply to this

        Thanks, MC, you are one of the good ones. I could not have said it better....

      2. jackclee lm profile image74
        jackclee lmposted 12 days ago in reply to this

        I disagree in your assessment. Obama was not a centrist...perhaps only in the mind of leftist. He got what he wanted having both houses of congress the first two years. He said election had consequences... as a result, we got Obamacare. We also got the huge debt which the GOP signed off on under the objections of most conservatives.
        Why didn't he pass immigration reform? Why didn't he used the billions to fix our infrastructure? Why didn't he go after ISIS when the generals told him what was going on...he overruled them...
        He was a progressive just as Hillary would have been if she was elected...Bill Clinton was a centrist president and accomplished much more with bipartisan efforts. Please go read up on your history.
        It was never about his skin color. If Hillary had won in 2008, we conservatives would have been just as against her policies.

      3. Ken Burgess profile image83
        Ken Burgessposted 11 days ago in reply to this

        "The GOP treated Obama like sh*t from day one, obstructing every little thing they could & blowing up every opportuntiy they could."

        And we see the same going on now, wouldn't you agree?

        The President is small fries compared to the Congressmen and women who have dug themselves in to the D.C. establishment for 30 years or more, they are all following the same Piper(s), party affiliation no longer matters for these vampires.  Not to mention the bureaucrats and lifers that control the Pentagon, the FDA, the Federal Reserve, etc. etc. none of them are voted in by the people, but most of them have been in D.C. for decades.

    4. profile image60
      Jack freelandposted 10 days ago in reply to this

      History will tell how Obama ranks.  Compared to the current resident in the White House, he's George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and FDR rolled into one...believe me.

  2. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 12 days ago

    He had grace, dignity, a certain amount of modesty, something that could pass for humor (or he chose his writers well) and he had a spotless record in terms of personal morality.

    This does not mean I would choose him as a national leader.

    1. jackclee lm profile image74
      jackclee lmposted 12 days ago in reply to this

      All true but that was exactly what I ask not to rate him on...read the question please.

  3. William F. Torpey profile image82
    William F. Torpeyposted 12 days ago

    President Obama will definitely be listed among the  Top 10 Best U.S. Presidents. "No Drama Obama" made America proud. His presidency is all the more appreciated considering the incompetency of the current Administration.

    1. jackclee lm profile image74
      jackclee lmposted 11 days ago in reply to this

      Really, would you be willing to place a bet on that?
      Obama will end up being bottom half of all presidents in 10 years.
      That will put him around 22 or 23 out of 45 presidents.
      Reagan on the other hand will remain on the top ten list of Presidents.

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 11 days ago in reply to this

        That is your opinion, do you have credentials as a historian?

      2. profile image60
        Jack freelandposted 10 days ago in reply to this

        Really?  Reagan would be branded a liberal by the current congressional republicans.  Trickle down economics...joke.  Cut and ran from Beirut.  Vetoed anti-Apartheid bill. Corrupt cabinet. The list is long yet among conservatives he's considered a God.  Sucked as governor too.

        1. jackclee lm profile image74
          jackclee lmposted 10 days ago in reply to this

          Yes, that is why he was elected a second time by 49 out of 50 electoral states. He is revered all over the world especially over in the former eastern Europe... where he freed millions from the tyranny of communist rule. He will go down in history as one of the great in the 20 th century...
          He was not perfect,,, but he stands shoulder above both Clinton and Obama...
          And he went against his own party and the media and spoke to the American people...
          Come to think of it, if he had twitter, he probably would have used it like Trump...
          He was a master communicator but more over, he had good sound principles...

          1. profile image60
            Jack freelandposted 10 days ago in reply to this

            I'll admit he had way of looking at Americans and communicating with them effectively, even as his policies were harming the same Americans.  You can put lipstick on a pig...you know the rest.

            1. jackclee lm profile image74
              jackclee lmposted 10 days ago in reply to this

              What policies harmed Americans?
              His policies are based on sound economic principles and I may add color blind...
              He treated all equally... equality of opportunity, not of outcome...

  4. abwilliams profile image83
    abwilliamsposted 11 days ago

    Okay I am late to the show, but the words on the marquee lured me in. "No Drama Obama" made America proud."
    In whose world...the Illusionist, the Delusionist, the Revisionist?
    There was nothing but drama with the man from the first time he uttered the words, "I want to fundamentally transform the United States of America" to him forcing us and multitudes of other small business owners away from our Businesses and into the streets of D.C. as first time activists. By placing mandates on us; purchase this product or suffer the consequences, provide this service for your employees or else. Who was he, overstepping the limits of his power, placing mandates on us? That was not in his job description, no more than it was for him to insert himself into Police matters and other sensitive matters throughout the land, pitting groups of people against one another.
    Fast and Furious...Benghazi...thriving illegal border crossings/Sanctuary Cities...crossed red lines ignored...vague threats....
    No Drama Obama...out across this Nation and across the world, criticizing America, throwing America under the bus at every opportunity, constantly apologizing for America's shortcomings, but having a hard time coming up with a single attribute.

    To answer your question Jack, I wasn't impressed.

    1. GA Anderson profile image84
      GA Andersonposted 11 days ago in reply to this

      Abwillaims, I hope I have mentioned before that it is good to see you in this forum. We, (us HP Politics and Social Issues participants), forum dwellers seem to be losing objective-opinion members. I am not a carded member of your choir, but I can agree with more than a few of your points.

      GA

      1. abwilliams profile image83
        abwilliamsposted 11 days ago in reply to this

        I don't typically come in late as I did, but upon seeing....."Obama will definitely be listed among the Top 10 best U.S. Presidents", took my breath away and the heart palpitations started. My response was purely for therapeutic purposes before I'd be able to get any sleep.
        The reality is that a large portion of middle America was deeply setback by the policies of President Obama. We have many friends (small business owners) that have either closed their doors or have had to call in reinforcements, in hopes of keeping their doors open.
        Obama not only accepted many things which were not in America's best interest, he encouraged them, all as a part of his transformational vision. 
        He doesn't get a pass now because he has moved down the road and he certainly is not deserving of any high praise.
        I know that all going on is so much more complex than just one man!
        Another friend that is in the latter category of business owners, is ready to stand on the street corner with a pitchfork, he is so outraged with what is going on with the Mueller investigation and with those 'dug in' in D.C. He recently informed me that he has two pitchforks, so I can join him, then he'll not be the only crazy one....wink

    2. profile image60
      Jack freelandposted 10 days ago in reply to this

      But he didn't take your guns and convert all of us to Islam.

  5. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 10 days ago

    His list of accomplishments after his failed predecessor is well documented.  As will the Democratic president who follows Trump.  That is if the USA is still standing by then.

    1. jackclee lm profile image74
      jackclee lmposted 10 days ago in reply to this

      What accomplishments might that be? winning the Nobel peace prize for what exactly?
      Spending 10 trillion of our dollars we don't have?
      Apologizing tour all over the world and leading from behind strategy of foreign policy?
      Iran nuclear deal which gave them billions of dollars for doing exactly what they are doing and enriching uranium...
      Sign on to Paris Accord which would cost US taxpayers billions to sent to help third world nations while China, the biggest polluter of all is scott free for 10 years...

      By the way, did he close Gitmo ? - it was his highest priority coming into office...
      He claimed it was a recruiting tool for terrorist... if true he helped in that process especially with ISIS...
      His failure to deal with ISIS lead to a huge human tragedy of over 1 million refugees pouring into Europe...

      Domestically, race relations took a step back under Obama, with Ferguson and other high profile cases he intervened without knowing the facts...
      Gime a break, my prediction stands. He will be judged by historians as one of the president in the bottom 50% ranking.

      1. Misfit Chick profile image91
        Misfit Chickposted 10 days ago in reply to this

        Most GOP voters hated Obama because of his funky name & WAY too dark skin color from the beginning. I don't know how many times I heard, "There is no way we are going to allow a black man run our country!" While he was running for the Dem nomination and the pres office. (And lets not forget all those ridiculous conspiracy theories they came up with - that didn't come true!)

        Your prediction is nothing but a Fox-incited fantasy. You can go look up what he won the Nobel Peace Prize for - a difficult thing for most Obama haters, sure. Wasting trillions? You mean like the GOP have done in the past when THEY have been in office? You can list all kinds of things about how horrible Obama was for this country; and I could find a GOP politician to match and probably even OUTmatch it. The same thing goes for Hillary. How GOP supporters are so blind to the failings within their own deviant party is beyond me.

        No, Obama didn't close Gitmo cuz a president CAN'T just do anything they want - even with an EO (someone should have informed Trump). I'm sure it continues to operate for a reason - and probably not ones that most liberals would appreciate. Dang, that means that someone in the gov EITHER 'outranked' Obama on making final decisions about Gitmo; OR Obama came to the conclusion himself after hearing the reasons WHY it should remain open. Which means that there are 'checks & balances' within our government that we are not aware of; OR Obama made a decision AGAINST his own campaign promises because it was best for the country. That is what a leader does. Imagine that.

        Race relations took a step back because he was a black man and so many people in this country HATED it - and their ugliness came out in shill protests that included burning Obama in effigy. It is one of the aspects of this country that Trump tapped into - get rid of the Obamination!

        Your party is so messy; and you're so oblivious to it - that your rants in here are becoming ridiculous, Jack. Both parties are messy; and one is not messier than the other. Things are like that intentionally to keep the attention of the American public diverted, distracted & FIGHTING. You know this, but refuse to acknowledge or take responsibility for your part in it - like most conservatives. What a shocker.

        https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13653923.jpg

        1. jackclee lm profile image74
          jackclee lmposted 10 days ago in reply to this

          As much as you wish it, the GOP is not my party. How many times do I have to remind you I am a conservative. I am not a Republican. To proof it, if you care, I have voted for Presidents of both parties..in some cases I voted the lesser of two evils...

          Also, some of is, because I can't  speak for all conservatives, are against Obama for his progressive policies, not his skin color or his name. I supported Dr. Carson in this past election. He is black conservative.

          I have criticized both political parties all my life. I call it as I see it.
          I have made mistakes in my political stance... I voted for Carter for president and was disappointed at his performance. He being a nulcear engineer by profession was a double disappointment.

          i also voted for Bill Clinton the first time but voted against him the second time. He was a smooth talker but lied to get elected. He did in office contrary to what he promised to do on the campaign trail...that is why I voted against the man for his dishonesty.

          1. Misfit Chick profile image91
            Misfit Chickposted 9 days ago in reply to this

            Well since the GOP is officially known as the party for conservatives; SINCE that is where the majority of you vote; and SINCE you 'talk the talk' about Obama like most people who worship Fox News - you don't get to claim to not be GOP.

            I have also voted for GOP candidates in the past - it makes no difference; and my posts talk about BOTH parties. Stop acting like a GOP right-wing hardliner and you will stop being accused of it. I honestly would not have thought that would have been a problem for you - you seem to LIKE being a staunch conservative.

            https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13654338.jpg

            https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13654339.jpg

    2. Ken Burgess profile image83
      Ken Burgessposted 9 days ago in reply to this

      It's really sad to see people post who are deluded into believing there is a difference between Dem & Rep still.  If you objectively look at matters, you can see the direction we have gone in Foreign Relations (wars) has remained consistent now for TWENTY YEARS... or did you not notice how the trend of overthrowing governments in the Middle East continued under Obama?

      1. jackclee lm profile image74
        jackclee lmposted 9 days ago in reply to this

        You are correct on some issues but not across the board. For example illegal immigration had a big impact under Democrat Administration but much reduced under a Trump admin. Why is that?
        The same can be said for business out sourcing...

        1. Ken Burgess profile image83
          Ken Burgessposted 5 days ago in reply to this

          Not everything, but the BIG ticket items, the ones that effect 90% of us, they (Congress) are.

          As for the immigration issue, that is a direct result of Trump, and you can't lump Trump in with the last 4 Presidents that all continued with same agendas and goals, (they were nothing more than front men).  Trump's ego and non-D.C. background is why he has shifted the country's direction (momentarily at least) and why he is the #1 enemy of the establishment and under attack from all sides 24X7.

          Whether its the ACA, or NAFTA, or WTO, when it comes to what impacts hundreds of millions of lives, or loses the country millions of jobs, party doesn't matter, only those who are corrupt (anyone that has been in D.C. more than a quarter century you can bet IS corrupt) don't vote along party lines or what is best for Americans.

          As to the topic of discussion (Obama) this is a great read:
          http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/13/how … than-ever/

          1. profile image60
            Jack freelandposted 5 days ago in reply to this

            Here is a better Federalist article:

            http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/16/don … yesterday/

  6. abwilliams profile image83
    abwilliamsposted 10 days ago

    More than likely, the same people that you heard say that about Obama, said something similar, when Clarence Thomas was nominated for the Supreme Court and when Tim Scott was running for U.S. Senate. I'm sure that it was said about Herman Cain, when he desired to be the President of the United States.
    In other words, (unless you count the reason for the birth of the Republican Party) it is not a Political Party thing, it is a racist thing.

  7. Tim Truzy info4u profile image82
    Tim Truzy info4uposted 9 days ago

    Of course, now Obama is responsible for the Arab Spring! Even the guy with the name of the Canadian rock band didn't mess up on that one.

  8. jackclee lm profile image74
    jackclee lmposted 6 days ago

    What is the existential threat Trump poses?
    If you can't answer that question, you have no business posting here or anywhere?

  9. Sychophantastic profile image81
    Sychophantasticposted 5 days ago

    I agree with Jack and President Trump! Fascists and anti-fascists are both at fault and we can't pin the blame for violence on just one group.

  10. Ken Burgess profile image83
    Ken Burgessposted 5 days ago

    You have to hand it to the MSM, they are hammering away at Trump, doesn't matter that he came out and said it was wrong, that we need to come together, etc. etc.  nothing he says will be good enough, and nothing he does will escape criticism.  The power of propaganda overcomes all, we have seen this in corrupt system after corrupt system for decades now, its just finally come to our shores.

    I am not saying Trump is a great guy, I'm not saying he isn't in it for himself (that is a different topic and I like to keep the Trump hate rhetoric separate from the we are all being screwed by a corrupt D.C.).

    What I am trying to make obvious is the outright effort of the 'establishment' to destroy Trump, which I am sure is fine to all those who despise him, but pay attention, because the next President they do it to, will be one YOU believe in.  In essence, your President, your politicians, YOU are powerless to change the direction of the nation and the corruption that has control of it.

    The government (combined with the MSM and outside forces like the U.N., WB, WTO, IMF, etc.) essentially have established a dictatorship right now, right here in America, one of corrupt politicians and D.C./Pentagon bureaucrats, so long as there are enough corrupt Congressmen/women who will do the wrong things for Americans, and for America's future... the only difference is there is an illusion of 'democracy'.

    That illusion is taking us down a dangerous path, as a majority of Americans are being forced to ‘pick sides’ and choose to blame one side or the other for all the woes we face today.

    And as the pressure builds, the politicians and MSM seem to stoke these animosities ever higher, so that people hate each other, blame each other, based on race or religion or political party, rather than focusing their blame on the real source of our problems, an out of control corrupt establishment/federal government.

    With a dictatorship you can identify the evil, and work to overthrow it. People would like to believe that Trump is this evil dictator, that is far simpler and easier to accept than the realization that our government (and the MSM that supports it) is our biggest enemy. 

    With a false 'democracy' most of the people remain ignorant of the truth, and will fight those who are trying to expose the corruption and criminal activity being done.

    For example the ACA (Obamacare) was written to make the Insurance and Pharma companies even richer. The very people responsible for writing it were representatives for the Insurance and Pharma companies, it was a new way to control prices (rather than open market competition), take more of people's money, increasing costs and taxes, both the government and corporations win… the people lose.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/10...
    http://healthoverprofit.org/2017/02/05/obamacare-t...

    Another example of this, look who is running the FDA, a lawyer who defended Monsanto. The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history, Michael Taylor was appointed to the FDA by Bush, then the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA by Obama and the Principal Deputy Commissioner of the FDA by Trump.

    Among some of the things he is responsible for, is the removal of warning labels for meat products laced with carcinogens, which had been around since the late 50s, and striking from labeling, informing consumers of known cancer causing poisons being in various food products.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor

    The SEC… the same type of corruption exists there.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybroadman/2016/02...
    http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Financial_ske...

    I sometimes wonder if Trump wasn't the perfect President for the establishment after all, more and more people were becoming disillusioned with Congress and D.C. on the whole, but now they are being forced to focus on, and take sides in regards to Trump and people are no longer paying attention to the ACA, trade imbalances, or any of the other critical things that are putting more and more Americans into the poor house.

    1. profile image60
      Jack freelandposted 5 days ago in reply to this

      Ken...within one minute of condemning the acts of the so called(his words)alt right, he was equivocating their actions with those of the so called alt left drawing a moral equivalency between the two.  There is an effort to destroy his presidency because he's an absolute danger to our democracy however corrupt you feel it is. He is losing support, not by the day, but by the hour.  To top it all off, he is destroying his own presidency with his words and actions.  The media reports in real time said words and actions yet you think its some grand conspiracy of the MSM to take down Trump.  Don't worry, he's accomplishing everything any liberal would want all by himself.  The media that supports him in fact distort and mince the words that the stupid SOB says.

      And with all due respect Ken, your premise that our country is so corrupt due to government/establishment is nothing new.  Where there is great wealth there is corruption.  Always has been and always will be.  Take the money out of politics. Undo Citizens United. 

      You want to undo your so called dictatorship? Think Trump is the catalyst for that?  Only if he abolishes the constitution which I wouldn't put past him. If he thought he could get away with it, I think he would.  Maybe you would prefer a world where Trump, Putin, and a united authoritarian Europe control western civilization? 

      My point is that Pandora's box opened long ago. We can't undo that.  Hopefully, together as well meaning citizens, we mitigate the wrongs and operate on a level playing field for everyone and not just the elites.  We are a world order. We are a world economy.  We are reliant on mutual security.  We will not go back to any form of isolationism.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image83
        Ken Burgessposted 4 days ago in reply to this

        I think you see things as you see them Jack, that doesn't make it so.

        What you are proclaiming/predicting "He is losing support, not by the day, but by the hour. "  was said over, and over, and over again during the Republican Primaries, and again during the national election, then 30 days into his Presidency, 60 days, etc.

        I don't know what you think is going to happen, other than his continued Presidency for 3+ more years.  Anything else would be a coup d'état of one sort or another.  With that you really would have a dictatorship, an event that would likely cause the economic collapse of not just this country, but the entire world, which would then trigger riots, wars, very dangerous, all encompassing wars as countries fight for resources, food, survival.

        Impeachment even at breakneck speed would require a lot more than anything currently said or done by him to have him removed from office.

        I have gone over that process and others in other answers, the only viable option requires the VP, and the majority of his staff to find him unfit, and for Congress to ratify that decision which would then make the VP President for the remainder of the term, as the only potentially viable, legal, constitutional way of removing him.

        Unless he were to remove himself, if they put a gun to his and his children's heads he just might.  Other than that type of threat to his family, made by people he knew would act, he is not stepping down.

    2. profile image60
      Jack freelandposted 5 days ago in reply to this

      Ken, what do you think about the chiefs of the military branches each sending a clear message to their forces that bigotry won't be tolerated?  Do you think they are part of the grand conspiracy to take the president down?  They have reiterated their loyalty to the president but I see it as a very clear message: We are watching you Mr. President.  Unprecedented. 

      Think Trump gives a damn?

      1. Ken Burgess profile image83
        Ken Burgessposted 4 days ago in reply to this

        I think I know a lot more about the military than most, and why they do what they do.  And nothing said or done sends any such message as you suggest.

        1. promisem profile image93
          promisemposted 4 days ago in reply to this

          History is filled with both close minded and open minded military people.

        2. profile image60
          Jack freelandposted 4 days ago in reply to this

          Ken, I respect your military service, however, unless you served in a command capacity and know something most of us don't, I can't see how any reasonable person would not construe what the joint chiefs did and when they did as anything more as a message to the president.  Maybe not exactly how I interpret as a warning to the president but certainly one as a clear message that the military will not tolerate intolerance.

      2. promisem profile image93
        promisemposted 4 days ago in reply to this

        They clearly have sent that message.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image83
          Ken Burgessposted 4 days ago in reply to this

          Spoken as one with no experience would speak it, with an absolute certainty on a topic of which he has no experience, nor depth of information to draw from.

          1. promisem profile image93
            promisemposted 4 days ago in reply to this

            As you do incessantly about the media?

  11. Valeant profile image90
    Valeantposted 5 days ago

    I always thought it was the Trumps of the world putting people into the poor house.  Recall this is a guy who defrauded people with a fake university, refused to pay hard working vendors, and is likely laundering money for Russian oligarchs.

    Congressional corruption pales in comparison to this guy selling out our nation to help himself and his buddies make millions in oil with the Russians.

 
working