I came across this webpage that lists every person arrested for the insurrection at the Capotol. You can filter the database for type of charges, state of residence, association with extremist groups, military background, etc. It is kept up to date as new information is known.
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/96547204 … ir-stories
"IF TRUMP TELLS US TO STORM THE F***IN CAPITAL IMA DO THAT THEN!" one defendant wrote. "I thought I was following my President," said yet another."
Geez, just how dumb can you get?
Most seem to need a strong refresher in basic civics studies.
Law Enforcement and the military should know better.
The rest appear to be just racist and misogynist kooks.
I didn't find any Antifa, nor did I find anyone masquerading as a Trump supporter. Just real Trump supporters acting upon their love of the man who convinced them he was a victim of a stolen election.
Yeah, there was one Antifa there - it was a Trump supporter dressed up as one, according to the charging documents.
Did you read they arrested and jailed a Trump political appointee who still worked for the State Dept and went back to his job after invading the Capitol?
No, I missed that one. I will check it out.
Here is a link,
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/05/politics … index.html
I continue to be amazed at the entitled mentality of these people.
As I'm typing this, my husband just said "I'm almost ashamed I was once a Republican." He switched parties shortly after Trump took office.
We are wondering how many Republican legislators will be revealed to have helped extremists in advance of the insurrection.
Do you also wonder how many Democrat legislators will be revealed to have helped extremists in the other riots through the nation last year? Whether by standing by and watching or actively helping?
(Although, to be honest, we will never hear of those. A handful of participants, another handful refusing to allow help to control the riots, but nothing on the hundreds that simply watched and did nothing.)
Lol, okay. By all means, please share which
Democrat legislators helped Antifa in advance of a siege on a government body.
I wonder if any Trumplicans helped the right-wing insurrectionist who dressed up in Antifa colors?
BTW, I try to be careful to differentiate between Trumplican congress people and the Republicans who have a modicum of self-respect and principle like Romney, Collins, Cheney, Cassidy and a small handful of others.
Finally, while I have your attention, my wife just read a headline that says Trump has issued a cease and desist order (like he listened to them himself) to the RNC, RNCC, NRSC to stop using his name and likeness without his permission. What a guy. ROFLMAO.
The Democrats can't ask for a better helpmate in their elections, LOL.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/06/politics … index.html
Oh my word, Trump is a world class @ss, isn't he? But, yeah, he's doing a lot to ensure the demise of the GOP. They brought in on themselves by ignoring their supposed "conservative values" and riding the disgusting, rancid Trump Train.
I wonder what the few remaining principled Republicans can do to salvage their party?
That is the 24 thousand dollar question. At the moment, the Republican Party is non-existent. If they can't shed themselves of Trump and the Trumplicans in the next year, I think the GOP is toast for many decades to come, just like what happened to the Federalist Party when they turned against America as well. They will lose more of the House and Senate (especially opposing help for Americans)
Does it matter if it wasn't Antifa? Because the Democrats of Portland sat quietly while someone made a determined to destroy federal buildings there.
Does it matter if it wasn't a "government body"? Because no one did anything when rioters took over a chunk of Seattle and refused to allow anyone in.
I'm sure "it" doesn't matter to you, as long as you can somehow rationalize in your mind that "it" is the same.
I'll leave you to it.
How do you know it is just one person? Do you even try to understand what you write? LOL
Let us assume there was just one person who decided to try (I don't believe they even came close to doing the kind of damage the traitors did at the Capitol) "destroy" a federal building. So what you just told everybody is that the "Democrats of Portland" (all of them) "sat quietly by" while somebody UNKOWN to them plotted to and then carried out said destruction.
Are you now accusing all Democrats of Portland on being in on the plot? It seems like that is the only way your fantasy can be true.
And YES, it DOES matter which "government body" it is, at least to Americans it does. Congress is the absolute symbol of our democracy which, based on what you just wrote, is lost on you.
You have once more read into my post what isn't there, for I never mentioned a single person. It took far more than that to ignore the riots of Portland, Seattle and other cities.
No, it mattered only to the Trump haters that found something else to blame him for when the Capital was invaded; the rest of us looked at the response from powerful people when it was them being threatened and wondered why the people fighting riots all summer never got the same response. It doesn't matter whether it was the Capital, a federal building in Portland, a housing subdivision or a few blocks of Seattle businesses and housing; people everywhere depend and have a right to protection from violence. Not just the politicians on Capital Hill. Or so I see it; you may feel differently.
It is a tiresome, and ridiculous, right wing talking point that the rioters in Portland were ignored. Tell that to the almost 500 people arrested in Portland alone. It's probably far more than that, as that is a number I recall from late summer.
But, in your fantasy world fueled by ignorance of the facts and right-wing media rhetoric, the rioters were "ignored."
I guess I am being dumb but I can't seem to find an easy way to find a forum on voting rights (rather than start my own), so I will post this here and hope someone shows me how to search for forums.
Biden begins his push back on the GOP-QOP-Trumplican attempt to exploit Trump's BIG LIE and deny people, especially black people, the right to vote.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/07/politics … index.html
I'll tweet it out as well.
"You have once more read into my post what isn't there, for I never mentioned a single person." - ACUTALLY you did. You used the word "someone" as in "Because the Democrats of Portland sat quietly while someone made a determined to destroy federal buildings there." - Hell, you even italicized it in your comment. As I said, short memory.
So you confirm that democracy and what symbolizes it has no special meaning to you.
But using your criteria how many Trumplicans (none of the Republican congress people) in Congress helped the right-wing rioters at the same demonstrations, or their own, who burnt buildings themselves or killed peaceful protestors on the left?
I think they stopped teaching civics in high school, assuming these guys and gals even went.
BTW - There are now two suits against Trump. One includes him, Giuliani, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers, I think. The other, more interesting one is against Trump, Trump Jr., Giuliani, and Rep Mo Brooks.
Both use a law designed to punish groups like the KKK for interfering with the work of Congress. The second one also brings in a DC law against inciting to riot.
Yes, I am following. I would like to see these people held accountable for their actions, not just the schmucks who fell for their propaganda and ruined their own lives in support of a lying demagogue and his henchmen.
Absotutely. They can give Trump and Giuliani adjoining cells (unfortunately, these aren't criminal cases) so they can concoct more conspiracy theories, lol.
On a serious note, the real value of these lawsuits is the discovery they will require.
Trump lost by millions of votes and caused the near collapse of American democracy with his "BIG LIE" that he didn't. Well it just came out officially that the Russians, under the direction of Putin, did everything they could, short of changing votes, to help Trump win. Imagine how badly Trump and maybe the other Republicans might have lost if Putin had kept his nose out of our elections like the Chinese apparently did!!
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/16/politics … index.html
Also in the report is an in-depth description of how Putin tried to sow discord about the integrity of our voting process. One of the ways they did this was use Trump's surrogates (can you spell Giuliani?) to pass their disinformation on.
I find it very coincidental that both Putin and Trump spent so much time (and still are) pushing the BIG LIE that the elections were fraudulent. I wonder what those two talked about during their many secret conversations?
Not surprising, and I wouldn't put anything past Trump
What a refreshing difference. When Trump interviews, most of what he says are BIG LIES.
When Biden interviews, the CNN fact-checkers still find inaccuracies, but BOY what a difference in scope and intent.
In a recent ABC interview, the fact checkers found three instances:
1. Biden said (remember, he has a stuttering problem he works to overcome) - ""60% of all these tax breaks go -- all these tax breaks go to the bottom 60% of the population." - the Trumplicans will point to this as a Big Lie because the actual number is "67.4% of all these tax breaks ...". Then it is unclear if Biden corrected himself or partially repeated himself with the second phrase. If he really meant, which I doubt, "ALL" then he is wrong.
On Central America he said ""I was able to get a bipartisan bill passed for almost $800 billion to go to the root cause of why -- why people are leaving." - OOPS, I hope. The real number was $750 [/b]million[/b]. Was it intentional as most of Trump's exaggerations were or a slip of the tongue? Anyway, CNN reported it.
On filibuster history, Biden said - ""Look, I think -- don't hold me to the numbers, George, but I think between 1960 and 2000, there were -- I'm making this number up, I don't know -- there were, like -- you know, 50 filibusters. Now there're, like, 200 since then..." - YEP, CNN reported that one as well, even though Biden caveated the hell out of it. The real numbers are roughly 25 a year between 1961 and 2000 when Democrats largely controlled the Senate to a whopping 75 average per year when Republicans (and especially McConnell) controlled the Senate between 2001 to 2020. Talk about abuse of power and why it needs to go back to the old ways.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/17/politics … index.html
I am quite pleased with the Biden presidency so far. Yes, there are so many refreshing aspects, and it is a relief to listen to our president speak without being inundated with a barrage of brazen, jaw-dropping, incredibly dumb lies.
Have you opened your home to a dozen or so illegal aliens being welcomed across the border, then?
Biden has made a raft of bad decisions, but those concerning our southern border have to top the list as all time gaffs. Not only has he refused to take action to stop illegal crossings he has actively encouraged more of the same. To the point that he has been forced to admit it.
The influx of people at the border is a serious problem and, yes, since it has been widely reported that this administration is doing its best to halt and repair the inhumane policies of the previous administration, the numbers have dramatically increased. It is a serious problem, one that I will give him more than two months to address before I criticize.
It will take quite a while to undo all of the damage the now departed incompetent administration left for others to clean up.
Why two months? The solution was being implemented - stop the influx, stop the encouragement, stop the incentives - and Joe has ended all that.
Why give any time at all, given that he is actively encouraging illegal border crossings with his new "let 'em stay" policies? He has created the problem this time around, after years of working to end it.
He did not create the problem, and your rosy view of Trump's border policies is not shared by everyone.
By very few, actually. He failed at that, along with almost everything else. He did manage to take babies from the arms of their mothers quite nicely though.
"He did manage to take babies from the arms of their mothers quite nicely though."
Classic My Esoteric. How many "babies" did he take from mothers' arms?
Seems like one would be enough for most of us to condemn the person who was responsible, but I guess not.
Babies? Or all children—up to the age of 17?
I suspect the age doesn't matter to the parents whose children were ripped out of their arms, they are all "babies" to them. And yes, GA, I do understand you are just trying to sharpshoot.
No, I wasn't trying to "sharpshoot" at all. I was simply noting your use of hyperbole, an act you have criticized for the last few years.
You thought could have been equally conveyed by saying "separating children from their mothers," but that wouldn't have the dramatic force of your hyperbole; ";. . . ripping babies from their mothers' arms."
"Classic My Esoteric."
Consider who the "hyperbole" is directed at - someone who only talks in "hyperbole". Normal conversation simply does not register with them. More correct, of course, would be to use the term "children", which is one small step up from "babies". But I don't think "children" means much to the audience the comment was for.
Also, unlike most hyperbole, "babies" is actually correct in many instances. Of course you need to define "babies". I will let Sharlee and Pretty do that since I have never had children.
" he has actively encouraged more of the same. " - That is an obvious lie.
Biden has surprised me in a pleasant way by not cowarding before an obstinate GOP, yet not willing to shut them out completely as long as they want to negotiate in good faith.
He has not ignored his left flank and is at least taking their issues and concerns seriously. He has the potential of moving the ball down the court in a way experienced only from our greatest presidents.
AND he had the audacity to speak the truth to a murderer by calling Putin a "killer". Trump never had the balls (or desire) to confront a fellow autocrat.
I will throw Trump one bone, however - while Trump IS responsible for thousands of deaths, mainly Covid related, he never planned any like Putin.
Yes! He is using his knowledge gained from his many years in Congress and also appears to be remarkably open to change, but in a practical way. I am very pleased so far.
You are pleased with the changes at the southern border, and the resulting hordes of people entering the country illegally?
You are pleased to see the price of gasoline rising again?
You are pleased to again bear the lions share of the global costs of clean air?
You are pleased to (once more) add tremendous debt onto the backs of your children?
All changes brought about by Biden - do the results please you?
Your interpretation is simplistic, partisan, and faulty. And to say all these changes were brought about by Biden is absurd.
"Interpretation"? Biden announces that he will allow anyone in the country to stay forever as soon as he gets the law changed, and you don't see that as encouragement to enter illegally?
Biden announces that if you have no parents with you, you can enter and stay in the country, but that is not encouragement to do exactly that?
We have more illegal aliens entering the country than any time in the past 4 years, and you don't think Biden's new policies have anything to do with it?
What fantasy world are you living in?!?!
Lol, I know that immigration is the most important issue to you, but it doesn't even rank in the top five for me, though I do believe Biden is dealing with an immediate crisis at the border. And, yeah, when a president who is openly hostile to immigrants of all types (unless they're from Norway, of course) is replaced by a normal, caring human being, more people are motivated to come here.
I'll take the new problems over the former nightmare any day.
Which doesn't address whether Biden caused, or at a minimum exacerbated, the crises at the border. May I assume that you agree that he has done so? Whether you think it is a problem or not, you agree that Biden's policies have caused more illegal crossings to occur?
Illegal crossings which have included a huge influx of unaccompanied children; children in numbers which we are not equipped to handle?
And where ever Melania came from illegally.
Do you know when illegal immigration becomes a so-called problem in America? It is ONLY when conservatives need an "other" to complain about. The real fact is, illegal immigrate, writ large, has never been an economic or social problem to a nation built on immigrants.
It is just when xenophobes get involved ...
Also true. I have also noted that when Republicans are in power they become mysteriously silent about the debt, but let a Democrat propose spending money on anything that might help the poor or middle class, and they suddenly wake up from their deep slumber, like a robot whose dead battery has miraculously been revived. "Debt bad" they shout, as their dead robot eyes suddenly flow red with artificial life.
Same story every time. lol
" Biden announces that he will allow anyone in the country to stay forever as soon as he gets the law changed," - Another Wilderness untruth.
You know what is encouragement is Trumplicans whining all the time about open borders, when they aren't, that Biden is inviting immigrants in, when he is not. The migrants are believe the other Trumplican BIG LIE and are flocking to the border as a result.
If Trumplicans would stop their crying, I bet the in-flow would slow down.
Let's see, you are equating "hoards of People" to lots of kids
We create the lions share (along with China) of world pollution, so yes, we should bear the cost.
Just as pleased as you are with the "tremendous debt" Trump put on the backs of your children. The difference is, this debt is to help people, Trump's debt was to help the rich.
It seems to me that rising gas prices means demand is finally building back up (or supply is running low). Since Biden is helping the economy grow, my bet is on increasing demand. Since Biden has done nothing to reduce supply, it can't be for that reason.
A third option is that all of that excess supply that drove prices down during the pandemic has been used up.
I think this is just another case of you flailing to denigrate what looks to be a great president.
And you are intentionally spinning it into something you will try to ignore.
I didn't forget to include the hoards of adults - did you? But we saw some 30,000 kids cross illegally in just the last month - do you not count that as a "hoard"? Thirty thousand new mouths to feed, house, clothe, educate, etc.? https://nypost.com/2021/03/11/us-mexico … -february/
In addition to those kids, we caught (how many escaped capture?) a hundred thousand people; does that constitution a "hoard" in your opinion? https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/0 … 20-totals/
Right. We should bear the cost of fixing the problems in other countries. We'll have to agree to disagree there.
Biden's attempt was to buy votes for the party; the amount of pork in the package is ample evidence of that. In addition his payments to tens of millions of people that never did lose their job is additional evidence.
And you don't think that stopping exploration or drilling for oil will raise prices. You need to re-think your stance.
As you state, you are flailing at anything you can in order to support policies that are damaging to the country and to the Americans that inhabit it. Illegal aliens will certainly benefit, though!
See, you can tell all you listen to is right-wing BS when you say things like "In addition to those kids, we caught" - the fact is that almost ALL of those who reach the border turn themselves in. tsk, tsk.
Did you give your stimulus money back yet?
"And you are intentionally spinning it into something you will try to ignore."
My comment, borne out in spades as you try to ignore 100,000 foreign citizens crossing our border illegally because instead of "catching" them they turned themselves in (or so you claim - I highly doubt it is true). And then deflect into the stimulus money to boot. Nice try, though!
BTW, why are deflecting of the real danger to America - the conservative- based hate crime against black-, brown-, and now Asian-Americans of the sort that invaded our Capitol?
Or the conservative-inspired palatalization of a pandemic that has increased the number of deaths from Covid?
Or the conservative stupidity in not wearing masks, not believing Covid is even a thing, and refuse to get vaccinated - all of which will increase the death toll as the variants they ignore sweep the country.
Sorry to tell you, That is the REAL danger to America, not illegal immigrants.
I have to wonder when was the last time an illegal immigrant seeking asylum (almost all of them, btw) ransacked America's Capitol waving the racist confederate flag and killing/beating the police. You know who did, conservative Trump supporters, that is who. Talk about danger to America.
Yep, Biden has balls to call Putin exactly what he is, while Trump (Goldilocks) was having some sort of amarous affair with the man.
You are quite correct to identify those who are impatient with the Democratic process. But thats allright, because it is all Right.....
Please have a look at the actions and many Sanctions Trump's administration slapped Russia with. No president in our history placed as many sanctions on Russia. Words can be reassuring, they can be for the moment boost one's opinion of the person saying the words. Action is in the end what matters. At this point, Biden made the comment "they will pay" we will need to wait and see if he follows through. Trump's actions spoke loudly in my opinion, most just never were reported. That should make you think a bit about the media.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr … on-russia/
"No president in our history placed as many sanctions on Russia." - of course that is not even close to being true. You also have to define whether he did it "willingly" or at the direction of Congress. Had he followed the (which everyone knows Trump does not like to do) he would have placed many more sanctions on Russia.
Then of course you have all of the accommodation of Putin that Trump is guilty of. Keep in mind, Russia attacked the United States - your country - yet Trump did all that he could to minimize and even deny it. Why did he do that?
There are things like:
- the traitorous comments (directly to Putin in one instance) and actions where he put Russian intelligence above Americas.
- giving Russia a pass for targeting Americans in Afghanistan
- turning over Syria to total Russian domination
- cutting off aid to Ukraine to fight the Russians
- saying that Russia had a right to the Crimea
- constantly repeating (to this day) Russian propaganda about America and our elections.
This is the man you want to lead America. Amazing!
BTW, to be useful as proof of your claim, the link needs to start with actions presidents took since 1947 and not 2017.
And I just watched Wilderness's and Sharlee's hero, Trump, tell his supporters almost nobody gets Covid; and I remember him saying something to the effect that almost no one dies from it. And then I notice that after he lied about that, nearly 30,000,000 Americans have caught it, with millions more to do so, and over 530,000 Americans have died from it, with 100,000s more to do so.
Yet they, and those like them, keep on believing every word this idiot says - probably including that he won the 2020 election. (I had to put 2020 in there else GA would question me, lol).
- giving Russia a pass for targeting Americans in Afghanistan --An unproven allegation
https://news.yahoo.com/u-afghanistan-co … 40215.html
- turning over Syria to total Russian domination --- That would be Obama, not Trump. Russia gained its foothold under Obama.
Oct 2015 --- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34416519
- cutting off aid to Ukraine to fight the Russians _That would certainly be once again a mistake made by Obama.
https://www.vox.com/2014/9/3/6102001/ob … ns-ukraine
"WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama suggested Thursday that the U.S. might impose new economic sanctions on Russia, blaming it squarely for the warfare in eastern Ukraine. But he ruled out any military options and proposed no shift in an American-led strategy that has yet to convince Moscow to halt operations against its far weaker neighbor." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s- … on-ukraine
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukra … IP20140903
Trump armed Ukraine with ---- https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/ … story.html
2020 Before Trump left office Perhaps you missed this? --- US Will Send Ukraine Another $250M in Weapons, Gear and Other Aid The upcoming delivery will bring total counter-Russia aid to the Eastern European nation to $1.75 billion.https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2020/06/us-will-send-ukraine-another-250m-weapons-gear-and-other-aid/166088/
- saying that Russia had a right to the Crimea --- This is all kind of stupid. One only needs to look for a named source to these allegations and one can see there are none. All rumors no one stepped up and put a name to this rumor.
At any rate, as you see I don't agree with the list of derogatory accusations you lusted. I have more than somewhat proven there are two sides to every fake news story. Not sure why you would bring up these subjects they delve into Obama's very poor foreign policies.
https://medium.com/coming-in-from-the-c … 926ad41d7f
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/18/ba … y-failure/
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles … gets-wrong
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/01/09/bar … man-rights
Read what historians thought about Obama's time in office.
We always come back to comparing Obama to Trump. I believe the historian got it right. He was a president free of scandal, he gave a nice speech, he did work to bring a slow but sure economy back. He pushed many social policies that many Americans appreciated. His foreign policies were poor due to his"fly below the radar ploicies. He did nothing, in the end, to bring citizens out of poverty, and he lacked ingenuity. He brought nothing of any great significance to the Nation. He was a bit above Jimmy Carter. He will be very memorable a the first black president, that was clean and articulate -Joe Biden sentiments --- Not mine.
I found him very intelligent, well-spoken and appeared to have a kind nature.
- giving Russia a pass for targeting Americans in Afghanistan --An unproven allegation" - Yep, one important person is suspicious yet our intel community, which I know you have no faith in since Trump doesn't, thinks otherwise. Also, why did Pompeo and the Pentagon warn Russia not to do it?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … -response/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/13/us/p … ompeo.html
"- turning over Syria to total Russian domination --- That would be Obama, not Trump. Russia gained its foothold under Obama." - I don't need to provide any links for this response since the facts are well known. While it is true Russia did gain a "foothold" under Obama (who chose not to go to war over it as you seem to imply he should have), it was Trump who turned Syria over to the Russians and Turks. While the Russians took over our bases in Syria, Trump let the Turks slaughter our allies the Kurds. Trump has blood on his hands from many sources, the Kurds are just one of them.
"- cutting off aid to Ukraine to fight the Russians _That would certainly be once again a mistake made by Obama." - Once again you misstate the truth. Obama NEVER cut off aid to Ukraine. Granted, he didn't provide lethal aid (which I think he should have), he did provide millions of dollars of other critical aid. One of the very few things Trump did right (only because he wanted to embarrass Obama and look good) was provide lethal aid, which he cut off while trying to pressure them to help his political campaign. Again, no links needed since that is one of the things Trump was impeached for.
"- saying that Russia had a right to the Crimea --- " - There was a NAMED source, it was Trump himself!! "In a television interview Sunday with ABC News, Trump said “the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.” He also said that, if elected president, he would “take a look at” recognizing the Black Sea peninsula, which Russia annexed from Ukraine in 2014, as Russian territory." https://www.voanews.com/europe/ukrainia … ine-crimea
Those 2017 historians you mention also said this about Obama:
"While he will be lauded for guiding the nation off the precipice of a global economic catastrophe and for extricating America from two protracted, inconclusive wars, Obama’s aggressive use of executive power in the face of congressional obstruction imperils his biggest achievements in restructuring health care and the financial sector, immigration reform, environmental protections, labor policy and LGBT rights. "
"In the near-term, he brought stability to the economy, to the job market, to the housing market, to the auto industry and to the banks. That’s what he’s handing over: an economy that is in far better form than it was when he took over. "
"People will see enormous progress in the lives of gay people, and a president helps sometimes those cultural changes take place or at least he gets credit when it happens."
"And I suspect one of the signature international agreements was the climate change agreement in Paris, which would be a marker perhaps of the first time the world really took action together to slow climate change. "
"Syria will probably be a problem for him. He himself told me, when I interviewed him, that that was the decision that haunted him the most—not that he had had two decisions and made the wrong one, but he said maybe there was some other decision out there that he didn’t have the imagination or the inventiveness to figure out."
"It remains tempting to paint Barack Obama’s election as a step toward healing the nation’s great wound of racism, even if not the expiation of what George W. Bush referred to as our “original sin” of slavery at the opening of the National Museum of African American History & Culture.
It didn’t happen. Obama’s election ironically had the opposite effect. The President’s opponents questioned his legitimacy from the beginning. The leader of the opposing party declared that the highest priority—more important than the public good—was to make sure Obama would not be reelected. This imperative failed,[b] but the racism that runs so deep in American culture was unleashed[b/](by conservatives) as it had not been for two generations. The bandages have been ripped off the sores, which are now open and festering in public culture." - and Trump made it much worse by embracing white supremacy
"Was Obama then a failure? No. American public culture has failed. We were not ready for a black president. He cedes power on Friday to the very people who questioned his legitimacy and denied him the right to govern. They have already begun to demolish his accomplishments. But historians eventually will also calculate the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, look back on the results of the opening to Cuba, appreciate his admittedly belated environmental activism, and notice that his Administration was virtually scandal free."
"Obama’s most lasting policy legacy will be saving the American economy from the “Great Recession.” As he entered office, the U.S. financial structure was in free fall, nearly bringing the nation’s banking, investment and credit systems to a halt. The “misery index” (unemployment plus inflation rates) soared to almost 13% in 2009. President Obama righted the ship through a stimulus package (including infrastructure improvements), expanded relief of failing banks and investment firms, and the bailout of the American auto industry. The “misery index” has been cut in half (6.29%) as he completes his two terms, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which had sunk to 6,000 in 2009, is now just shy of 20,000."
I will leave it at that.
I think proved your first sentiments were not really correct. Could argue all of these too... Not willing to at this point go down memory lane.
One thing I would not bring up the word slaughter --- 500 Syrian men, women, and children died on Obama's time. Due to being Kurds... Obama's Genocide --- https://www.smu.edu/News/2017/ben-voth- … -03feb2017
By the by it was Congress that bailed out the country, not Obama.
Let's see, you are trying to convince me that your opinion piece by a debate coach (at least that is what Google says, and yes, I know he has a Phd) who criticizes Obama for what - following the law and the dictates of the host country.
Question? Is Ben Voth anti-Obama? Pro-Trump? Based on the weakness of the logic of his article, I would say both. The article's I read made the point that he is Christian. Would that be of the right-wing evangelical-type?
Now, Trump made a calculated decision to abandon the Kurds, against his advisors advice. By withdrawing, Trump sent hundreds of Kurds to their death. Obama, on the other hand, followed the law. Do you see the difference?
Is the New York Times, WaPo anti-Trump, Pro Obama? I am a Christian, does this make my opinion bias?
Trump made a decision to start bringing troops home due to ISIS being beaten to the ground. It was his policy that when a war is won, bring the troops home. One can argue his thinking. Obama drew a red line and backed away which lead to genocide. Not sure why you even bought up the Syrian conflict. You have a much different opinion in regard to how Obama handled the Syrian crisis. I am sticking with the historians on this one.
I will step back from this conversation, I offered my opinion, I provide some good sources on the subject to include a non-bias article that provided opinions of historians. Plus we are hijacking the thread. If you hope to discuss Obama versus Trump's foreign policies adds a thread on the subject. It's an interesting political subject.
WaPo and NYT are known for their fair reporting, whether you chose to believe that or not. Based on recent articles I have seen, I would say they are not anti-Biden, but I know that simply reporting negative things does not make them biased, just reporters.
Since Trump did a lot of negative things, then of course his supporters would think they are biased even though they are just reporting the truth!
You left off a word (purposefully?) when you called yourself a Christian. I made the distinction between real Christians and evangelicals. So, are you an evangelical? If so, then yes, it is highly likely you are biased to Trump. The best I can tell, the majority of real Christians support Biden.
About ISIS being "beaten to the ground" - only Trump and his supporters believe that; the military kept telling him they weren't - but then he always said he knows more than the generals.
I took your non-biased article from Time and quoted a lot from it that didn't agree with the picture you tried to paint of Obama from it.
You seem to be conflating non-related things. The "red line" to which you refer was regarding Syria's use of chemical weapons. He said he would bomb them if they used them, and he didn't (and I think he should have. I also think he should have established a no-fly zone which Hillary wanted.).
Instead, he threw the ball into Congress' court, as he technically should have done, and they didn't go along. So why aren't you saying that Congress committed genocide? In the end, which you apparently forgot, Obama got the Russians to go along with taking the chemical weapons from Assad.
As to genocide, other than the Kurds which the Turks are killing, what ethnic group (or other classification) is being wiped out by Obama. What group has Obama killed or had killed through his actions, inactions, or failure to obey the law?
Hopefully, you read my link that gave historians opinions. I feel they were non-bias, gave credit where due, and yes pointing out his foreign policies without bias.
In my opinion, he was a very weak president when it comes to his foreign policy.
I quoted much of what they said back to you. Didn't you read it?
And to be honest, I don't disagree with your opinion about Obama's foreign policy, I think he could have been stronger sometimes. That was one reason why I wanted Hillary over Obama the first time around and definitely over Trump the second.
That said, I would rather have Obama's caution than Trump's recklessness.
How many of them ransacked the cities of Portland or Seattle? Did you check...or do you simply assume that none of the rioters in those sanctuary cities were illegals?
When did Portland and Seattle become the seat of American democracy? Or, is that not important to you either? Just asking because I wanted to see where your values really are.
Oh, btw, some of those who did do damage and killing in Portland and Seattle were Trump supporting right-wing terrorists.
Or, how many of those doing the damage were peaceful protestors? Very few. How many of the criminals who did damage in Portland and Seattle (and weren't Trump supporters) had a political agenda to stop an election? NONE. How many ransacked America's Capitol to stop democracy? Many hundreds. I know you don't want to admit it, but there is a difference.
Portland and Seattle are the perfect liberal bugaboos for some right wingers. Sadly, their media sources have fed them a load of propaganda so their knowledge of what actually transpired and who perpetrated it is highly skewed.
Oh, you can only riot at the "seat of democracy"? When you do it anywhere else, when you hurt people or destroy their life's work it doesn't matter? It only counts when you threaten the rich and powerful instead of the little people that spent their lives building a small mom and pop store?
I would disagree with you; it is far more despicable (in my mind even if you don't care) to simple destroy for the sake of destroying rather than trying to make a political point, or in trying to make that political statement via terrorism (intentionally targeting people that have nothing to do with politics)
But you said it all with "Oh, btw, some of those who did do damage and killing in Portland and Seattle were Trump supporting right-wing terrorists.". If you can't degrade Trump or anyone not on your bandwagon it's all right do riot and hurt people. Again, not in my mind regardless of what you think: I don't care if they are right wing, left, independent, Trump supporters or foolish supporters of the Democrat party. Anyone that riots is equal in violating the law and common morality.
Your gross exaggerations ("to stop democracy") means absolutely nothing, for that never happened. Instead those idiots thought they were supporting democracy while people like you denied democracy and canceled it out by cheating on the vote. You may declare that anyone of a different opinion than you about the cheating in that election intends to "destroy democracy" but we both know how foolish such a declaration is; it is much like declaring that Biden (and you) have as a goal to destroy America with policies and ideas that are honest but very misguided and harmful.
Yes you do care that "Again, not in my mind regardless of what you think: I don't care if they are right wing, left, independent, Trump supporters or foolish supporters of the Democrat party. " - It is proven by your singular focus on anything liberal. If the right does it, you find excuses or ignore it altogether.
You mean like an entire summer of rioting in Portland...that you don't want to hear about. Or like rioters taking over part of Seattle and banning police, homeowners and anyone else from entering "their" turf...that you don't want to hear about.
Because they can't be proven to be Trump supporters you don't care what they do or did.
Yes, like that.
In your opinion, anyway. I disagree; the real danger to our country (based on law) is to ignore the laws we enacted in favor of buying votes by bringing in millions upon millions of illegal aliens and then requiring Americans to support them.
But that's OK - I don't expect you to recognize problems outside of what liberals claim.
How many serious laws did the right-wing Trump supporting terrorists break that you don't seem to be worried about as they committed insurrection against the United States?
Hmmm, crossing the border illegally vs killing a Capitol policeman. You worry about the border crosser while I worry about those maiming and killing of our Capitol police. I guess it comes down to what one finds more important.
Interesting - Former top federal riot prosecutor thinks Trump may be indicted for Insurrection
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/21/politics … index.html
Oh well, once again a "former" giving his opinion from the outside looking in... This is the only sentence that held relevance in the article.
" US Attorney for DC Channing Phillips, have not directly addressed whether Trump will be investigated."
That statement is added for CNN covering ass at the end of the article. Guess we might want to wait and see if Trump is charged with ANYTHING.
And what is wrong with "former" who JUST recently was on the inside looking out.
"Michael Sherwin, the former acting DC US attorney, also said he believes sedition could be a charge made against some Capitol riot defendants.
"It's unequivocal that Trump was the magnet that brought the people to DC on the 6th," Sherwin said in response to a question from "60 Minutes" about whether Trump is part of the investigation. "We have soccer moms from Ohio that were arrested saying, 'Well, I did this because my president said I had to take back our house.' That moves the needle towards that direction. Maybe the President is culpable for those actions."
Sherwin noted that other rioters have acknowledged they went further than the President's speech."
"Sherwin's candid comments come as he leaves his Justice Department post leading the Washington, DC prosecutors' office and its sprawling investigation into violence at the Capitol. He was appointed to the job during the Trump administration. "
"When CBS' Scott Pelley followed up to ask Sherwin if investigators were looking into Trump's role, Sherwin responded, "We have people looking at everything, correct. Everything's being looked at." - I think you are smart enough to read between the lines.
I don't read between lines... In the past, that seemed to get me in trouble. just was simply pointing out. As of yet, Trump has not been charged with anything. And that is not for the lack of the Dems trying.
And that, for sure, is true - for criminal charges, for now. He has been charged civilly, however.
As I said on many occasions, it is very apparent Trump has many open investigations, and it will be interesting if he is charged with any form of civil or criminal crime. Let's face it many are working hard and long to make your dream come true. It's a wait-and-see scenario. If they can get him on anything, they will.
As they should be. Look how long it took to bring Al Capone to justice.
I don't dispute any form of investigation on anyone that there is a suspicion of wrongdoing. I do look poorly on anyone that condemns on just a possibility of wrongdoing. That goes for anyone.
Had you been alive during Al Capones time, or any of the other gangsters, are you suggesting to me that you would have defended them as you do Trump until they were convicted?
How about Hitler? I condemn him but he was never convicted. Do you defend his character as well? Will you give Hitler )or a whole host of really bad people who were never convicted of anything) the same breaks you give Trump?
I point out these absurdities to show you how untenable "I do look poorly on anyone that condemns on just a possibility of wrongdoing." is.
I think this post says it all, Eso. The left has never been strong on abiding by the laws, whether we like them or not, but has been drifting (rushing?) towards that court of public opinion (read: hanging mob) rather than a jury of peers presented with facts and information. Your post fits very snugly into that category.
That, of course, makes no sense at all.
Different subject. Did you know that you, personally, have about a 1 out of 100 chance of being killed by a gun, either by your own hand or others in you lifetime? So do I. So does Sharlee. So does every other person.
Of course, that only holds for America and almost nowhere else in the world. Everywhere else, it is much, much lower.
1% of all Americans will die by gunshot? Not sure what you've been smoking but I want some of it!
Did you know that more people die from bludgeoning than all long guns combined (including the dreaded "assault rifle" that idiot liberals insist must be removed from the land as the cause of most murders)?
Why do you ALWAYS not tell the whole story?? Try again, but this time get the quote correct. No wonder people don't find you credible.
"Did you know that you, personally, have about a 1 out of 100 chance of being killed by a gun, either by your own hand or others in you lifetime?"
I read that as 1% will die of gunshot during their lifetime. Did you mean .01%? .0001%? If not, what DID you mean?
Hey, my chance might be higher living near Detroit and visiting my daughter in Chicago... But the thugs in both cities use handguns. Last week in Chicago 30 were
March 8tg 2021 --22 shot, 2 fatally, in Chicago this weekend, including wounded 11-year-old
March 23, 2021 -- At Least 21 Shot, 4 Killed In Weekend Gun Violence In Chicago; Police Officer, 10-Year-Old Boy Among Those Wounded
Thanks for making my point about violent crimes with guns.
Just so you don't get the wrong idea, I am pro-second amendment. But at the same time I am anti-letting just anybody get a gun whenever they feel like it and with no restrictions (which is how the Boulder City assailer got his.)
Never in the history of the Presidency had we ever had a occupant with so much of the appearance of wrong doing whether he is convicted or such or no.
If there a a lot of flies around what is it that is attracting them?
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
“Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler came under fire over a viral video showing antifa protesters blocking traffic and harassing drivers, but he says he supports the decision by police to watch from a distance without getting involved.“I was appalled by what I saw in the video, but I support the Portland...
by Sharlee 11 months ago
The GOP Held Strong Using The First Filibuster To Stop The Democrats Cold In Their Tracks May 28, 2021 --- "Senate Republicans on Friday halted an effort to form a bipartisan Jan. 6 commission to investigate the Capitol attack, marking the first successful legislative filibuster...
by Scott Belford 7 months ago
In my opinion, yes - the Republican Party no-longer exists today even though Trump followers incorrectly refer to themselves as Republicans.Let me open this discussion with a short tutorial of the Republican Party (now keep in mind, the Party title has no bearing on the Party philosophy and any...
by Ralph Schwartz 3 years ago
John McCain claimed that leaks provided to WikiLeaks by Bradley Manning, which included the diplomatic cables, caused U.S. foreign sources to be harmed.However, it was in fact an error on the part of a Guardian journalist, not WikiLeaks, that that led to the full unredacted cables leaking to third...
by Jack Lee 22 months ago
Latest riots and protests in Portland just a sign of how society crumbles under anarchy.They are demonstrating exactly why we need the police and that they are worse than the problem.
by PrettyPanther 16 months ago
Some have pushed their way into both the House and Senate.The Capitol Police have asked for reinforcements. The constitutional proceedings have been halted. Legislators have been told to shelter in place.Will Trump ask them to stop? I doubt it, but maybe he will come through and do the right thing,...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|