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.
They are outraged at Hillary using an external email account but ok with it when Colin Powell did it. They also had no issue with Karl Rove using an external email server for 95% of his White House correspondence. They are also not outraged at the millions of emails deleted by the Bush Admin right when they were being investigated by the Congress.
But Hillary, 'she should go to jail.'
Fortunately, we are arguing with the fringe right, a minority in a minority. These are the people who would have voted for Barry Goldwater and been members of the John Birch Society.
Do you have any evidence that Colin Powell used his private emails to sell influence through a family foundation with known contributors spanning the entire geopolitical gammut?
That's the difference. Hillary Clinton didn't delete 30,000 cookie recipes. If justice truly is blind, the FBI will know soon to what degree Hillary Clinton profited off of America.
If you and your liberal cronies think Powell did the same, then why haven't you made your case through FOIA, the FBI, and the Courts?
Right now, polling shows about half the country disapproves of Obama, not 60%. But many of those are people who feel he's not liberal enough.
So, I think you're in an echo chamber exaggerating how unpopular he is based on those who agree with you.
Can you back up your claim that his disapproval ratings are because Obama is not liberal enough? That is a pretty bold claim for a country that many view as pretty moderate, despite all of the online bloviating and rabble-rousing.
Don't take this as an attack. It is not. I'll stand by my assertion that you made a bold claim and I would like to see some proof of that. Doubtless, others would like to see that as well.
Actually, 6 years of polling...including an average of polls from RCP....is pretty steadfast evidence. It's not like the people are being polled on a prediction such as an election.....these are polls of people's opinions of the direction this country is going under Barack Obama. If you can't see the difference, then I can't help you.
Polls are polls. You're presenting opinions as facts.
If you can't see the idiocy, then I can't help you.
Actually, 6 years of polling...including an average of polls from RCP....is pretty steadfast evidence. It's not like the people are being polled on a prediction such as an election.....these are polls of people's opinions of the direction this country is going under Barack Obama. If you can't see the difference, then I can't help you.
What direction do you mean when you say that? I honestly don't get it. Federal jobs are shrinking. Private sector jobs are expanding. We've been more effective taking out terrorists than ever before.
I'm not saying it's been perfect or couldn't be better, but you are talking like we're in a free fall similar to the last administration and everything seems to be moving in the right direction when you look at the numbers.
Polls are polls. You're presenting opinions as facts.
If you can't see the idiocy, then I can't help you.
More obtusity from the digit.
Either that, or you're simply not smart enough to know that a aggregation of polls actually does represent a fact. And that fact is that for 6 straight years the American populace believe that this country is on the wrong track under Barack Obama. To make matters even worse, it's not even close. Look at the numbers if for some reason you're interested in what the people think.
What direction do you mean when you say that? I honestly don't get it. Federal jobs are shrinking. Private sector jobs are expanding.
We've been more effective taking out terrorists than ever before.
I'm not saying it's been perfect or couldn't be better, but you are talking like we're in a free fall similar to the last administration and everything seems to be moving in the right direction when you look at the numbers.
It doesn't matter. 100% irrelevant. For 1 million people there could be 1 million reasons they think this country is on the wrong track under Obama. Their reasons are irrelevant - their response is all that matters. And for 6 straight years the numbers haven't even been close. An overwhelming majority think that we are on the wrong track under this President.
Either that, or you're simply not smart enough to know that a aggregation of polls actually does represent a fact. And that fact is that for 6 straight years the American populace believe that this country is on the wrong track under Barack Obama. To make matters even worse, it's not even close. Look at the numbers if for some reason you're interested in what the people think.
It doesn't matter. 100% irrelevant. For 1 million people there could be 1 million reasons they think this country is on the wrong track under Obama. Their reasons are irrelevant - their response is all that matters. And for 6 straight years the numbers haven't even been close. An overwhelming majority think that we are on the wrong track under this President.
I was asking about you personally - why you're so enraged while our country is doing so much better than 6 years ago.
Those six years include Obama getting soundly re-elected, so your claim isn't accurate.
I was asking about you personally - why you're so enraged while our country is doing so much better than 6 years ago.
Those six years include Obama getting soundly re-elected, so your claim isn't accurate.
First of all, it's intellectually dishonest to even remotely assert that Barack Obama is the reason that any or all of the previously cited economic metrics have improved and are the result of his actions or policies. If you're suggesting that he gets the credit simply because he's President, fine. But please don't sit back and assume that just because he's the President that he's the actual reason's these numbers have "improved" without providing evidence that his policies alone deserve the credit.
Let's test your objectivity. Since the House is in control of the purse strings, I surmise that you will also give credit to the GOP, correct?
Second, it's really pretty disingenuous to take rock bottom numbers from a Recession, which have nowhere to go but up (or down, such as the statistic may be), and then declare success when they actually go up through hardly any effort by this President.
Let's test your objectivity again: You speak of stability in housing markets, which is by extension stability in the banking sector. Bush is responsible for TARP. Who gets the credit for its perceived successes?
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.
