As gun sales increased under the Obama administration, were Republicans gullible enough to think Obama was going to take their guns away?
YES! And they still are at it. Gun sales are off because they no longer are worried that their right to kill will be taken away. Remington has filed for bankruptcy. But there has never been any credible legislation presented to Congress to take away the right to buy guns…ever! Even if you are stark raving mad, totally insane, and blind you can buy a gun. There are no checks required for private sales nor are there checks for sales at gun shows.Look at how gullible the right wing is with conspiracy theories about the latest school shooting, how gullible they are with how Hillary was going to sell uranium to Russia (it takes an act of congress to do that, so if the right was concerned it was because they were worried the GOP was going to sell uranium since they were in charge of Congress, not Hillary). Same gullible people bad mouth the Clinton's about their foundation EXCEPT it was Trump running a crooked foundation not the Clinton's, who get no money from theirs, but Trump did from his before the State of New York shut it down. Look at how gullible they are about health care, global warming, environmental issues other than global warming, employment Carrier has laid off just about all the people they said they were going to even after they fooled VP Pence into giving them millions of dollars. Same gullible people wonder why the DOJ has not gone after Hillary when the DOJ has nothing to go after them for! Same for Obama. Look t ow Hope Hicks has now admitted she told lies about Trump to protect him but the right believs everything he says is the truth…how gullible is that!!?? The list goes on and on.
How do you react to the Obama Administration's "white paper" on its legal authority to order military action against Americans abroad?
The white paper puts us on a slippery slope, but it does two things that makes the slope somewhat less slick. It specifies the kinds of targets and it indicates that there is a process by which a decision as to the execution of the target is made. That process is not transparent, which is why the slippery part acquires its lack of friction. The real reason that a policy like this was created is because we are not officially at war with al-Qaida. When we are officially at war, we have a lot more lee way as to killing our enemy as we "know" who they are. In this case, we may know who our enemy is, but we don't have blanket authorization from congress to do anything about it. It may be impossible, from a logistical point of view, to apprehend the target and bring them in to stand against a jury of their peers. It is even less likely that the individual would voluntarily offer themselves up for prosecution to prove their innocence. So without the possibility of pursuing a course of due process, and in the face of a clear and present danger by those in a position of know, there are few or no alternatives.In my opinion, there needs to be a new law or set of laws and a procedure that is more transparent that accommodates this situation. The framers of the constitution could probably not imagine a situation where partisanship would allow an existential threat to the nation and its best interests to trump rationality, but that can of worms has for too long threatened the nation anyway. Regardless, new legislation should be passed to clarify the definition of an enemy when not engaged in out right war, and the process by which that enemy, if a citizen of the nation, be held accountable.
Does the Obama administration have a "the beatings will continue until morale improves" feel to it?
Job cuts, up steps the boss to issue a beating to improve morale (pork spending). More job cuts, up steps the boss to issue a beating to improve morale (tax increases). Will Obama keep giving out the beatings until morale improves? P.S. - This question requires an understanding of office jargon to understand, so people who historically choose to sit out the work force probably won't understand it.
What do you think about President Obama and his performance as president?
He was a very good President; presidential scholars are already rating him among the top 12 - 15 of all time.Survey: Historians rank Obama 12th best presidentHis achievements were impressive, particularly when you consider the insane obstructionism by Republicans throughout his term.What President Obama Achieved in Eight YearsThe Obama Legacy is SecureFact-checking the Obama yearsDid Donald Trump inherit 'a mess' from Barack Obama?Here are President Obama's top 50 accomplishmentsHe was also a fine example for Americans, as a devoted spouse to a strong, equal woman (also gorgeous), and a loving and involved father. His administration, unlike almost all previous ones and the current one, was free of scandal. He represented us very well around the world, and won the respect of most people in other countries. He won the Nobel Peace Prize, and not for ‘not being Bush,’ but for an incredible schedule of travel, speeches, and meetings in his first months where he advocated for peace and the reduction of nuclear weapons.He is a highly intelligent and extremely well-educated person, and his speeches were (and are) clear, honest, direct, and effective.He set a very high bar for the office. That’s why it’s especially painful to have an amoral buffoon who can’t communicate squatting in it now. There simply could not possibly be a greater contrast.Despite President Obama’s tireless work and many accomplishments, or almost certainly because of them, he also had to deal with insane racist hatred directed not just at him, but at his wife and children.Michelle Obama on the racist insults that 'cut her deepest' during her eight years in the White HouseHe had more crap made up about him than any president of any time.Chart: Almost Every Obama Conspiracy Theory EverHmmm, and he was the first black president . . . naw, just a coincidence, I’m sure. And the haters still can’t let go. He utterly deranged them by blowing up every stereotype they hold dear as the pathetic foundation of their identity.
What does Obama think of Trump and his administration so far?
A couple I know of:Greatest turnover of white house staff and Cabinet posts.I don’t think anyone other than a propagandist can think that’s a good sign.I don’t know if it’s a record, but they are putting a LOT of federal judges on the Bench. If you want an extremely conservative (and sometimes incompetent) federal judiciary, you’ll think that’s good.If you want a reasonable, moderate, well qualified, judiciary: you’ll be pretty terrified.Why? Two reasons:1) The Republicans blocked as many judges as they could under Obama, so there are a lot of openings.2) Trump is appointing people with much less review than any previous president, and the Senate is approving them with hardly any more — and having abandoned the rules that ensured a quality, moderate judiciary.I’m guessing he’s setting all kinds of records for making and breaking international agreements — the Paris accord, the Iran deal, declaring the embassy in Jerusalem, tariffs…
How much will The William J. Lepetomane Memorial Casino for the Insane get from the Obama Stimulus Package?
Since the whole Obama Administration is based on the 1974 Movie "Blazing Saddles" when can we expect this zany cast of characters to put toll roads on the prairie, build phony infrastructure, and rename the whole population "Johnson"? Bonus: Which characters are who > Examples Lepetomane = Patterson Sheriff Bart = Barry Obama Reverend = Joe Biden
If the definition of insanity is "Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results"?
That's what I've been saying, man.