Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's really big news! I'm sure you've got lot's of links that describe the fraud and manipulation Obama used to win. I'M sure you'll be thrilled to have the opportunity to post them.
Thanks!
The corruption in Chicago (and the rest of Illinois) is universally known. No links are needed. Anyone denying it does so merely to attempt a lie.
Oh come now, she fought tooth and nail in that primary. Obama came out of nowhere in Iowa and beat her out by not that much when the dust settled.
The main reason was that he's just a lot more likeable and charismatic.
It's nothing new, that's something Reagan and Bill Clinton had....heck even Bush II was folksy which helped him beat stiffs in 2000 and 2004.
It's the same reason that people that saw the Kennedy debate thought he won and those that heard it thought he lost. lol.
Frankly, that's Hillary's big problem in 2016. She's OLD and was never that likeable. She's going to be within a few years of the age McCain was when he was "old" back in 2008.
The typical voter is a moron. <shrug>
P.S. I seem to recall some unions were still peeved over her and Bills NAFTA support and went in favor of Obama.
Nafta and the 2000 China Trade Act.
Remember we were going to renegotiate NAFTA during the 2008 primaries?
How's that going?
As a conservative, I'm hoping the Democrats will run Hilary in 2016, but if the Republicans run another corporate *****, I'll vote third party.
The corruption in Chicago (and the rest of Illinois) is universally known. No links are needed. Anyone denying it does so merely to attempt a lie.
Ah! Nothing but a dubious connection to the "Chicago corruption" thing. Guilt by association now becomes an "Everyone knows............Blah, Blah, Blah. Therefore it now becomes quotable fact. I should have known. that's how you guys operate. Tell a lie in one thread then quote it as fact in another. Bah! Humbug.
If there was a shred of corruption in Obama's past then the Clinton and Republican machines would have found it. Funny they all missed what you obviously found.
Oh, don't be cute, Harrier. Many people didn't want the presidency volleying back and forth between those two families.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
I assume they got rid of her because she could not win. Hillary rubs some people the wrong way, and with B. Clinton's sex life scandals she could never win.
And B. Obama has an exceptional education, and the experience to be president. He majored in political science with a specialty in international relations. He worked for a year at the Business International Corporation, ex.ex..
He went on to Harvard Law School, and he was president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree, and he worked as a civil rights attorney. He also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, ex.ex..
Then Obama served three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004,
But unforchantly republicans are not impressed with B. Obama's education and experience to be a (law maker.) Republicans want CEO's to be our law makers.
I think that's a lot of it. But "they" didn't get rid of her. The voters did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
you're confused.
Obama played nothing fair.
He engaged in every kind of election fraud or manipulation he could - that's why Hillary lost.
Obama's from Chicago... You seem to forget that nobody who wins in Chicago does so by a fair vote. The party and the politicians have honed manipulation, fraud, and theft to a high art.
Neat graph, but it covers up yearly spending and deficit as a percentage of both actual revenue and GDP. No President since WW II has presided over larger deficits as percentage of revenue, worst revenue as percentage of GDP and highest spending as percentage of GDP as Barack Obama. Check OMB's historical tables.
The Nobel Peace Prize is not an indicator of how much the world loves anyone. It's a measure of how much the Nobel committee wants to politicize the award. They gave the same award to Yassir Arafat, because apparently Fatah's involvement in the 1972 Munich games massacre and the bombing of the Achille Lauro, and his repeated support of Fatah using violence and terrorism to achieve Palestinian goals was peaceful?
Uhm, Kissinger got the award in 1973 for the Paris Peace Accords, and two members of the committee quit in protest.
And Obama got the award for his campaign speeches, as he had been sworn in for like 3 weeks when he got the award. He had done nothing in office, and had only campaigned. Among those speeches, he promised to close Gitmo (still open), withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan (took 5 years for former, still hasn't done latter), and negotiate with hostile governments. I guess he left out "bomb Libya, foment coups in Egypt, and launch a massive drone war against anyone he designates a target" but during his acceptance speech, he did talk about how military force is justified when the US uses it.
Again, check your numbers at OMB. Nobody has outspent revenue as much as Obama since WW II.
What would an Obama defense be without a hypothetical extrapolation of someone else's campaign speeches that picks and chooses which variables it will observe, which it will ignore and how the mythical numbers will look in ten years? Romney was never President, so judging Obama's "success" against an imagined Romney "failure" is the same as having your annual review be based on all how much worse all the people who didn't get hired for your job would have done...in your estimation.
So says the myopia of willful partisan ignorance.
You said "Obama had been sworn in for like 3 weeks when he got the Nobel award."
But Obama assumed office in Jan 2009.
And Obama accepted the Nobel prize Dec 10 2009.
Then you said "Obama got the (Nobel) award for his campaign speeches."
But according to the Nobel committee Obama got the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. And Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. ex.ex.ex."
And GW Bush handed Obama huge deficits and a high national debt growth rate (and Obama cut both in 1/2.)
And republicans spin the above fact like a top.
Then you said "Obama got the (Nobel) award for his campaign speeches."
But according to the Nobel committee Obama got the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. And Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. ex.ex.ex."
And GW Bush handed Obama huge deficits and a high national debt growth rate (and Obama cut both in 1/2.)
And republicans spin the above fact like a top.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
