Do you agree with Obama's statement?
Yes, I do, but what I also know is that there are many people on this site that spend their time searching for something to slam the president about, often taking it out of context, often not even knowing what the context was, and often bringing up his "sins" that happened five years ago. I find it said that there are Americans so filled with hatred towards our elected leader because of their own fears. I did not agree with most of what Bush did, but I did not hate him as a person or revile him, his wife and his children on a daily basis. Also, do you honestly think that 200+ years ago anyone could write a document that would still make total sense today when our world is so different? The 2nd Amendment, for instance, was written when men had muskets that fired one bullet at a time. There's nothing wrong with saying some updating might be in order. Then the intelligent people in the country could discuss what that updating might entail while the non-intelligent ones were still running around expressing their uninformed outrage.
Is obama a democrat or republican?
Barack Obama is a Democrat. So is Hillary Clinton. They ran against each other in 2008 for the Democratic Party's nomination. Obama is a Democrat because he favors "economic fairness," meaning government regulation of the economy. He also is generally favorable of gay rights and "a woman's right to choose" to have an abortion. Both George HW Bush and George W. Bush are Republicans. They generally do not support government regulation -- though they do support many subsidies. They are generally for "traditional values," like that marriage should be between "one man and one woman," and that "the rights of the unborn" should be defended.
I just read the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/...I’m going to shock Quora by doing something I almost never do. I am going to speak positively of the 39th President of the United States.None of this surprises me about Carter. First of all, the man has meant well in everything he has done. Yes, I think he was a terribly ineffective POTUS, and I will never change my mind on that. But he’s made every decision he’s ever made on the basis of his personal values, which are rooted in a genuine Christian spirit and a belief in the principles this nation was founded on. My issue with Carter is simply that sometimes, the POTUS has to be an SOB who doesn’t care if someone’s feelings get hurt. Carter doesn’t have that in him, even when dealing with SOB’s.However, he has been remarkably effective in dealing with them when he doesn’t have to make the hard decisions himself. When it comes to diplomacy, even with the likes of Kim il-sung, he’s gotten results in the past. And if I were Trump, if Kim Jong-un was willing to receive Jimmy Carter for discussions, I’d let him go there. The Kims like it when important people treat them like they’re important (even Dennis Rodman, for crying out loud), so let Carter try.I like that Carter said it was OK for the NFL players to protest, but that they should do so in some other way. That’s my position on the matter, too. Good cause, but bad method. And I agree with him about the Confederate monuments.He said he voted for Bernie in the primaries. I’d be surprised if he didn’t vote for Hillary in the general election, though.And he’s right about the other two things. Russia didn’t steal the 2016 election, and Obama failed to deliver on many of the things he promised. You can blame that on the Republicans in Congress, but he knew they were there, and knew he he had to work with them. Instead, he did this: Obama On Executive Actions: 'I've Got A Pen And I've Got A Phone'. Hell, even Trump worked with the Democrats when the debt ceiling issue came up again.All in all, a very good article and I like what Carter said here.
I know when the Democrats did not have a super majority: in the first two years of the Obama administration.Republicans often say that Obama didn't accomplish anything during his first two years as president even though the Democrats had the majority of both houses of Congress, but this is what happened. A super majority, i.e., enough senators to break a filibuster, requires 60 senators. In January 2009, when the new Congress was sworn in, the Democrats had a coalition of 59 senators—57 Democrats plus two Independents who caucused with the Democrats. You’ll recognize the Independents’ names: Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman.One seat was vacant: the Minnesota seat that had been held by Republican Norm Coleman, but which Al Franken won by a few hundred votes. Coleman demanded a recount, likely on orders from Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republican leadership to stall as long as possible so that Franken couldn’t be seated.Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy was dying of a brain tumor and after March 2009, stopped coming to work. The Minnesota recount and associated litigation finally ended in July 2009 and Franken was sworn in. A month later, Kennedy died. His seat remained vacant until Republican Scott Brown won a special election to fill it.Republicans’ intransigence and avowed intention to make Barack Obama a one-term president resulted in filibusters being conducted almost routinely. A supermajority of Democrats in the Senate was needed to pass any legislation. But because of the delay in seating Franken and the death of Kennedy, the Democrats never had a supermajority.
The election of republicans from the presidency all the way down to state governors shows that many people of all parties, races, sexes, and religions were concerned about the direction that Obama was taking the country. Major concerns of national security, jobs, and stagnant economy were reported.As an independent, the issues outweighed the personalities. Obama was likable, but failed miserably in leaving Iraq unseecured, leading to the rise of ISIS. Then failed to recognize the dangers of ISIS. Failed in the Iran nuclear deal. Failed to secure our borders to drug and human trafficking, as well as not dealing with illegal immigration. Failed with jobs and the economy. Trump is not very likable, but has already begun fixing those problems.While there were many vitriolic comments about Obama, the hatred was not there that Dems have spewed on all who disagreed with them. The slander of sexism, racism, homophobe, xenophobe and deplorables is still dished out on anyone who agrees with republicans in any way.Historically, the hatred preceded Trump and has nothing to do with him. I believe it was all political spin to manipulate voters towards the democrats, but it backfired. Dems lost all credibility.Who knows if Dems really feel the hatred they display, but if one is only going by behavior; nothing the Repubs/Libertarians/Independents have ever done compares with what the Dems are doing now.
Mitch McConnell said that nothing encapsulates the Democrat’s hard left turn towards socialism more than the “Green New Deal”. What do you think about his comment?Here is the truth; and please bear with me while I give you some background.Senator Mitch McConnell is actually the President of the United States. He has been so for a very long time.For those who think that President Trump is actually the President, you have been hoodwinked. It is in name only. That goes for President Obama's second term as well.Mitch McConnell is a dictator who rules with an iron fist, and governs entirely independent of President Trump, except when he wants for President Trump to believe that he takes orders from him.Mr. McConnell became President the moment that he made it his “life's greatest accomplishment" to obstruct a vote on President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS.[1]Since that time, President McConnell has prevented vote after vote after vote in the US Senate. He does not allow any Republicans to vote on anything, unless he personally decides if he wants it to become law.For example, the US House of Representatives just passed the “We The People" campaign finance reform bill, and he will not bring it to a vote.If the US House passed UHC, he would not bring it to a vote. If the US House passed any type of green bill, he would not bring it to a vote.My point is that Mr. McConnell has been saying the the Democrats took a very hard left the moment that we elected President Obama.He has made it his life's work to reverse and obstruct anything that the Democratic Party has ever done. It doesn't really matter what Democratic party stands for or what bills they pass, they are all considered hard left.Footnotes[1] FACT CHECK: Did Mitch McConnell Say One of His Proudest Moments Was Telling Obama 'You Will Not Fill This Supreme Court Vacancy'?
Remember what that idiot liberal president said to the Coast Guard?
The military itself regards climate change as a serious issue, which will probably lead to significant unrest in different parts of the world. The military, unlike you, actually takes science seriously. For pretty obvious reasons. A relative of mine recently traveled on a Coast Guard ship to the artic circle. The sea ice no longer begins to appear at the same latitude that it did in the 1970s (at the same time of year) -- it appears at a notably higher one. The Coast Guard and Navy keep diligent records on such things, as one would expect them to. If it turns out that the "idiot liberal" is completely right (about this particular issue), what will that make you?