WHy do people choose to misunderstand Obama's quest for an identity as a young person for bias and hate?
Obama does not dislike white people. In his books he discusses his journey for a self-identity. So naturally he vascialted. As a mixed race persone myself, I can understand this. There are times when you hate either race but at one point, as a mature individual, which Obama has become, you realise that there is value and beauty in all races and you personally embrace what you are. If Obama were as racist as some people want to beleive, he would not have so many white freinds, and supporters of all races. He is the most diverse candidate. White candidates have not seemed to generate the amount of diverse support that he has. He isn ot a racist and is an honorable man. Also, don't forget that he grew up in the '70s, a period where it was fashionable to be black ( finally, for once) and even many white people indulged in this for what is was worth and to the extent that they could. If not just in music and hair styles and the like.
Michelle Obama would be a good president?
She is not interested and wishes people would stop talking about it.
Was Michelle Obama disbarred? If so, why?
First of all, let’s start with the documented facts:Michelle Obama obtained her license to practice law in 1988. She surrendered that license five years later in 1993.The Illinois Bar web site confirms only that her license was surrendered. No details are made public.Those are the facts. Now here is my opinion as an attorney with 36 years of experience:I find it highly suspicious that any young attorney would surrender her license just 5 years after earning it. Going to law school and passing the bar exam is a very expensive process and a lot of hard work.The surrender of a lawyer’s license is usually part of a deal to avoid criminal prosecution. Lawyers who have been charged with serious misconduct — the kind that would result in a public disbarment proceeding and an indictment— are often offered a deal: surrender your license and walk away free.Whatever reason Mrs Obama had for surrendering her license, it will remain a secret. But I, for one, do not believe she did it just to save a couple of hundred dollars a year in registration fees. That story is ridiculous.
Would it not have better for Obama to come clean and launch an investigation into ACORN ?
Mr. Obama clearly worked for ACORN. He had to know, first hand, what type of organization they are. Why did he choose to use the attorney general to prosecute members of our intelligence community who were doing a great job for our country and ignore ACORN. In the end result, I feel, it would have beneficial for Obama to come clean, stand up like a man and admit he made a mistake for ever associating with this group of thugs. He admitted to using drugs and was still elected. Americans are a forgiving people, but we do not like being deceived.
Why did President Obama pick Joe Biden as VP instead of Hillary Clinton?
I’ll take a little different approach in answering this question, although one must keep in mind that, since no one here has actually talked to Obama about his pick, this is all speculation.I believe that Clinton wasn’t picked because she didn’t want the job and really wanted Secretary of State. Vice President is a powerless job with no real value (or really anything to do, except wait for the Senate to vote in a tie or for the President to die) and there was no way Clinton was going to end up in the shadows like that.Secretary of State is a much more visible position, and that’s what she wanted. Obama agreed.
Why didn't President Obama try to fill the Supreme Court seat before leaving office?
Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill Justice Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court on March 16, 2016, about a month after Scalia’s death. Garland was the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and a moderate who was highly regarded and well respected by both Democrats and Republicans.However, the Senate was controlled by Republicans and within hours of Scalia’s death leader Mitch McConnell said that Obama shouldn’t be allowed to choose a successor in his final year as president, a rule that never existed up to that point.Justice Antonin Scalia was considered the most conservative member of the Supreme Court. His death left the court evenly divided, with 4 left-leaning justices and 4 right-leaning. Many major Supreme Court decisions in recent years have fallen on partisan 5-4 votes. His successor could help shape the direction of the country for years to come.With Republicans in the Senate supporting McConnell, Garland never received a hearing or a vote.(Senate Republicans Tell Obama Not to Bother Senate GOP uniting behind McConnell in insisting Obama's successor fill Supreme Court USNews | Feb. 16, 2016, at 8:55 a.m. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-02-16/senate-gop-to-obama-dont-bother-nominating-to-court)
Why couldn't Obama select the last Supreme Court nominee even though he was the president?
President Obama did select a nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. What followed was the absolutely unprecedented action of the Republicans refusing to even hold hearings regarding his fitness and qualifications for the Supreme Court. This has never happened before in the history of our Republic and is considerably outside the established norms of conduct in the Senate.As to why they did it? I suspect the answer can be found in the actions of the past week, when Senate Democrats did go forward with hearings, did invoke a filibuster, and then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell claimed that this fiilibuster was both unprecedented and called the proper function of the Senate into question. The rules could not be changed mid-term without that point of order.I have seen a great deal of Republican projection the past few decades, accusing Democrats of tactics which they themselves have used or are planning to use. In this case, I suspect that Republicans projected that this was what would happen if hearings were held and Republicans filibustered, so they stopped Democrats from even holding hearings instead.No previous president has had a nominee blocked before the way that Judge Garland was blocked, even in the earliest days of the Republic when the job was a lot less prestigious, not even when Democrats held Congress while a Republican was in the White House.President Obama could not get a nominee heard during his final year due to unprecedented obstruction by Senate Republicans. What bothers me most about this is that they were rewarded at the ballot box for not doing their jobs, meaning they are not very likely to do their jobs well.What do people want? A functional government that works for We the People, or a dysfunctional government that generally works for Them the Wealthy and leaves the rest of us with crumbs?