HuskerNation1

The Liberal left refused to accept that radical islamists are out to get us, and that ISIS has grown by 4400% under Obama's watch and will continue to pose a threat to our nation for years to come. They use the gun control debate to deflect from the reality of what is happening, and its really sad. What I want to say to you will get me kicked off the board. But that's just the worst extrapolation of non-fact you could cobble together, to support a thesis that doesn't understand the threat to America from either guns or radical Islam. What a terrible time to be peddling this horsesh#t. What is non-factual...Obama's own FBI Director has come out and said that ISIS has grown by 4400% during Obama's tenure. It's not something made up. It's why when I responded to your post earlier this week about the biggest failures of the Obama Presidency, I listed ISIS as #1. Go ahead and walk me through the rise of ISIS. Use facts. I dare you. https://www.aei.org/publication/brennan-admits-isis-was-decimated-under-bush-but-has-grown-under-obama-by-as-much-as-4400-percent/ http://freebeacon.com/national-security/cia-director-isis-has-grown-4400-percent-under-obama/ ISIS as an organization was formed in 1999 so has spanned the past 3 Presidents. They were pretty much wiped out under Bush's watch according to the CIA director, but have risen to prominence under Obama's tenure.

That's ridiculous. The U.S. has been raining death on 'radical Islam' for a long time, and will continue to do so regardless of who is President. The reason you don't feed into the anti-Islam rhetoric is because this is also a war of ideas. If you truly believe that radicalization is the problem and not Islam, then you fight against that. America has been killing Muslisms for so long that it's awful easy to convince Muslisms that the West is out to get them. ISIS feeds on that. No thanks on giving them an assist. It's not ridiculous. If the President is a smart man, he can easily call out Radical Islam while not referring to all Muslims. These same Islamic terrorists are killing tons of gays in Iran and the middle east as well. In order to beat the enemy, you have to define them and understand what drives them.

The Liberal left refused to accept that radical islamists are out to get us, and that ISIS has grown by 4400% under Obama's watch and will continue to pose a threat to our nation for years to come. They use the gun control debate to deflect from the reality of what is happening, and its really sad. What I want to say to you will get me kicked off the board. But that's just the worst extrapolation of non-fact you could cobble together, to support a thesis that doesn't understand the threat to America from either guns or radical Islam. What a terrible time to be peddling this horsesh#t. What is non-factual...Obama's own FBI Director has come out and said that ISIS has grown by 4400% during Obama's tenure. It's not something made up. It's why when I responded to your post earlier this week about the biggest failures of the Obama Presidency, I listed ISIS as #1.

And others feel the same about Obama and his insistence on bringing the issue of guns into these terror events, and his refusal to call out Radical Islam. Let's not forget that after San Beradino Obama immediately brought up the issue of gun control which is a total douche move. I don't agree with Obama's policy and messaging on these events, and while I agree with Trump that we need to be smarter and tougher against terrorism, I do not agree with the timing of his response.

The Liberal left refused to accept that radical islamists are out to get us, and that ISIS has grown by 4400% under Obama's watch and will continue to pose a threat to our nation for years to come. They use the gun control debate to deflect from the reality of what is happening, and its really sad.

I have no idea why Trump won or tied the Evangelical vote in many of the primaries as I would prefer someone with a better personal compass. With that said, I do expect many of those Evangelicals who did not support him in the primaries to get on board as we are down to two deeply flawed candidates, and Trump at least offers a chance to reverse the negative direction this country has been on for years. Hillary will simply offer more of the same. Thus, I do now expect many of those Evangelicals that did not support Trump in the primary to get on board the Trump train. Seriously. I need a Republican to walk me through the negatives that define the negative direction we're heading down, so we can figure out how they happened, how to stop them and/or whether they are actually bad. And I need a good Christian to help me figure out why so many followers of Christ are opposed to feeding the hungry, helping the sick and loving thy neighbor, and instead support candidates who embrace guns, wage war and invite the money lenders INTO the temple. You are starting to sound like Trump by making extreme outlandish statements as a starting point for debating points. With that said, I will take the bait. Regarding the negative direction we are facing, here are my 4 biggest concerns facing our nation. 1. ISIS-As I pointed out in another thread, according to Obama's own CIA director, ISIS has grown 4400% under his watch. While he's taken out Bin Laden and other terror targets, we face a greater threat against terrorism today then when he took office. 2. Economic growth/Jobs-Obama certainly inherited a tough economic climate when he took office, so it's great that we've seen some improvement, but to me there is so much more possibility with our economy, and under his watch, more people have actually stopped working and dropped out of the labor force (meaning they are more dependent on social services), and the labor participation rate is the lowest since the Carter days. I would note that of all the past 5 Presidents, I think Reagan, Bush 43, and Obama inherited the worst situations, while Bush 41 and Clinton inherited the best. To me Bush 43 had the most difficult climate his first year dealing with a recession that Clinton left him, the Enron scandal and collapsing financial markets, and then 9/11. Anyone who would expect to see positive economic metrics (jobs, GDP growth) in his first 3 years in office simply is not being realistic. http://dailysignal.com/2012/09/07/two-huge-flaws-in-the-legend-of-the-clinton-economy/ 3. National Debt-Members of both parties are to blame for our national debt, but CBO predictions show that the rise in national debt in the coming years is going to explode even more than it has the past 10 years. Obamacare has made this rise in national debt worse. 4. Racial Tensions-Under Obama's watch, Racial Tensions have gotten worse, whether its the Ferguson Riots or the Baltimore riots or other acts. Polling supports that racial tensions have gotten worse. I liked what Obama said in 2008 that we are one America, and he would bring us together, but instead he's done the opposite, taking a divided nation and making it more divided. As for your comments about Christians, that's just ridiculous. I know we attend church every week and participate in programs to feed the hungry both in the US and around the world. We are constantly doing reachout activities to our local communities. And that is common across many Christian denominations. The difference is that Christian Conservatives do not feel its the Government's role to provide for all. Does this mean that the government should provide no social services...no, but when asked about increasing the size of government to pay for more citizens to be dependent on government, most Christians and Conservatives in general are going to oppose that. I could pose the same question to you. Hillary and Obama claim to be Christian. If that is the case, why are they proponents of abortion. I heard Hillary say in a speech a few weeks ago "I'm Pro-abortion." As I pointed out just a few days ago to those questioning my concerns about the Obama Presidency, item #1 on my list was the growth of ISIS and the fact that terrorism is a greater threat now then when he took office. It's very unfortunate that we have another horrific terror act in our country inspired by a group that was not a major player just 7 years ago. Prayers for all the victims and family members to those killed and injured today. An attack like this against any American is an attack against all of us.

Not a chance at all in my opinion. Hillary is approaching 70, and Bernie is already in his mid-70s. There has been speculation she will pick Elizabeth Warren to appease the hard left, but that would be a huge mistake I think two as Warren I believe is 66 herself. Hillary should pick someone a bit younger than her but that also can step in right away if anything should happen to her health wise. To me that exclude Cory Booker who simply is not tested enough. I keep hearing Sherrod Brown's name and that would be a good choice given he's from Ohio. Now he is 64 so not much younger than Warren, but a few years might make the appearance of a more balanced ticket age wise.

While I don't ascribe to the belief republicans are financially responsible, a POTUS has limited control of debt and often things are on a lag. For example, poor economic practices during the 90s caused the collapse in the 00s. And a tech boom in the 90s probably disguised underlying economic weaknesses that led to a fall in productivity and debt in the 2000s. I absolutely think you are correct. Now just wait for about 5 years after Obama leaves office and see how big of trouble we are in. Especially if Hillary (God help us) gets elected. Great point. CBO projections show that in the 5 years after Obama leaves the office the national debt will explode at an even higher rate. In other words, we have not even begun to feel the pain from his big government programs such as Obamacare.

I expect the polls to bounce back and forth. I just saw polling done by PPP, a Democratic outfit, that has Trump up in Florida and tied with Hillary in Pennsylvania. And the polls I've seen in the last week show that, with Johnson in the question set, it does little to change the variance between Trump and Hillary. In other words, if Johnson is getting 12%, he's pulling about half from Hillary and half from Trump.

Here is an article showing that the decline in labor participation rate is NOT due to retirees or kids staying in school longer. http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/record-low-labor-participation-rate-not-due-retirement-or-school-5431 And the entire point I was trying to make is that the real unemployment rate is much higher than what is typically consumed by the media each month. There are many more part-time workers now, and small business owners (such as my parents) are having to cut back on full-time workers in order to avoid ObamaCare regulations.

The problems in Ferguson went much deeper than the Darren Wilson incident. Once that happened and the police force there was investigated, it was revealed that there was an ongoing problem with racism within the force. This incident just brought it to the boiling point no matter if this particular incident was justified or not. I'm sure there were deeper problems in Ferguson, just as there was a long history of violence and crime in Baltimore prior to that city erupting as well. I simply do not recall in my lifetime seeing the level of violent protests across many parts of the nation that we've had in the past few years, and race has a lot to do with that, but protests in general seems to be at a similar level now as it was back in the 1960s.

I have no idea why Trump won or tied the Evangelical vote in many of the primaries as I would prefer someone with a better personal compass. With that said, I do expect many of those Evangelicals who did not support him in the primaries to get on board as we are down to two deeply flawed candidates, and Trump at least offers a chance to reverse the negative direction this country has been on for years. Hillary will simply offer more of the same. Thus, I do now expect many of those Evangelicals that did not support Trump in the primary to get on board the Trump train. Seriously. I need a Republican to walk me through the negatives that define the negative direction we're heading down, so we can figure out how they happened, how to stop them and/or whether they are actually bad. And I need a good Christian to help me figure out why so many followers of Christ are opposed to feeding the hungry, helping the sick and loving thy neighbor, and instead support candidates who embrace guns, wage war and invite the money lenders INTO the temple. You are starting to sound like Trump by making extreme outlandish statements as a starting point for debating points. With that said, I will take the bait. Regarding the negative direction we are facing, here are my 4 biggest concerns facing our nation. 1. ISIS-As I pointed out in another thread, according to Obama's own CIA director, ISIS has grown 4400% under his watch. While he's taken out Bin Laden and other terror targets, we face a greater threat against terrorism today then when he took office. 2. Economic growth/Jobs-Obama certainly inherited a tough economic climate when he took office, so it's great that we've seen some improvement, but to me there is so much more possibility with our economy, and under his watch, more people have actually stopped working and dropped out of the labor force (meaning they are more dependent on social services), and the labor participation rate is the lowest since the Carter days. I would note that of all the past 5 Presidents, I think Reagan, Bush 43, and Obama inherited the worst situations, while Bush 41 and Clinton inherited the best. To me Bush 43 had the most difficult climate his first year dealing with a recession that Clinton left him, the Enron scandal and collapsing financial markets, and then 9/11. Anyone who would expect to see positive economic metrics (jobs, GDP growth) in his first 3 years in office simply is not being realistic. http://dailysignal.com/2012/09/07/two-huge-flaws-in-the-legend-of-the-clinton-economy/ 3. National Debt-Members of both parties are to blame for our national debt, but CBO predictions show that the rise in national debt in the coming years is going to explode even more than it has the past 10 years. Obamacare has made this rise in national debt worse. 4. Racial Tensions-Under Obama's watch, Racial Tensions have gotten worse, whether its the Ferguson Riots or the Baltimore riots or other acts. Polling supports that racial tensions have gotten worse. I liked what Obama said in 2008 that we are one America, and he would bring us together, but instead he's done the opposite, taking a divided nation and making it more divided. As for your comments about Christians, that's just ridiculous. I know we attend church every week and participate in programs to feed the hungry both in the US and around the world. We are constantly doing reachout activities to our local communities. And that is common across many Christian denominations. The difference is that Christian Conservatives do not feel its the Government's role to provide for all. Does this mean that the government should provide no social services...no, but when asked about increasing the size of government to pay for more citizens to be dependent on government, most Christians and Conservatives in general are going to oppose that. I could pose the same question to you. Hillary and Obama claim to be Christian. If that is the case, why are they proponents of abortion. I heard Hillary say in a speech a few weeks ago "I'm Pro-abortion." As for #2..... Our financial situation was so dire when the took over that it was going to take time to pull us out. Yes, at one time, the labor participation rate was extremely low. However, recently there have been jobs reports where the jobs created high but the unemployment stayed the same. This is because many of those people who had given up looking actually came back into the work force again. It was a phenomena that the economists were perplexed by for a short time because they hadn't seen it that much before. Many of the things that happen in an economy can't be viewed as.....ah...ha.......that President caused that. It doesn't happen in a vacuum like that. Right now our unemployment rate is at the lowest it's been in quite a while and that's after a portion of unemployed came back into the work force. Honestly......our industry is buzzing along at a rate that we haven't seen since 2006. When we discuss sales volumes we are absolutely pleasantly shocked at how we have done in the last 12-18 months. It actually started getting better about 4-5 years ago. But, this year it has just exploded. Now, I know living in middle Nebraska, our unemployment rate really never went up that much and we are pretty much the lowest in the nation. But, our biggest problem right now is we can't find people. So.....I have a hard time ranting about how horrible our economy is. As for #4.... What do you attribute the racial tensions to? If I remember correctly, the riots you listed were direct results of police officers doing some pretty horrible things. Regarding the first item you bolded, you are suggesting that we should not attribute good and bed economies to Presidents, so when Hillary makes the silly claim that the economy is better under Democrats, she is misleading again? Would you agree with that? As for the labor participation rate, it continues to remain at historic lows. The unemployment rate as its typically reported is typically useless. A more fair measure would be the underemployment rate that includes those who are not fully employed as well as those who have left the work force. The underemployment rate when Bush was in office in his 2nd term was around 7.5% prior to the world financial collapse. It shot up to near 17% late in 2009 toward 2010, which I would not attribute to Obama, but it still remains near 14%, nearly double the pre-financial collapse underemployment rate. https://www.google.com/search?q=historical+underemployment+rate&rlz=1C1AFAB_enUS504US535&biw=1164&bih=759&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7_9qm5p3NAhULGlIKHb4oB-cQ_AUIBygC#imgrc=LPgC6Akw4Y_HrM%3A As for Nebraska, it's a red state and is buzzing like Texas and other red states with jobs. I lived in Nebraska for a few years and loved it due to the business-friendly climate. It's not representative of the nation however. Regarding racial tensions, that's a complete joke to blame the cops for all racial tensions. With the Ferguson riots, there was ample evidence that Darren Wilson was acting in self-defense, yet the left extremists were looking for a reason to create riots, and the media (including Fox) fueled what might happen, and as the city of Ferguson was on fire, those leftists figured fueling the fire were suddenly realizing what had happened. I'm not saying every cop is innocent, and there are some dumb cops out there, but the President could have issued more harsh words to his fellow African Americans that its not ok to burn a city down in protest. When Black Lives Matter protesters were chanting they wanted dead cops, Obama sat silently and refused to condemn them. I think this article highlights those racial tensions and I frankly feel that is a big reason why Donald Trump was so successful in the primaries. http://nypost.com/2016/01/17/how-obama-has-turned-back-the-clock-on-race-relations/

I have no idea why Trump won or tied the Evangelical vote in many of the primaries as I would prefer someone with a better personal compass. With that said, I do expect many of those Evangelicals who did not support him in the primaries to get on board as we are down to two deeply flawed candidates, and Trump at least offers a chance to reverse the negative direction this country has been on for years. Hillary will simply offer more of the same. Thus, I do now expect many of those Evangelicals that did not support Trump in the primary to get on board the Trump train. Seriously. I need a Republican to walk me through the negatives that define the negative direction we're heading down, so we can figure out how they happened, how to stop them and/or whether they are actually bad. And I need a good Christian to help me figure out why so many followers of Christ are opposed to feeding the hungry, helping the sick and loving thy neighbor, and instead support candidates who embrace guns, wage war and invite the money lenders INTO the temple. You are starting to sound like Trump by making extreme outlandish statements as a starting point for debating points. With that said, I will take the bait. Regarding the negative direction we are facing, here are my 4 biggest concerns facing our nation. 1. ISIS-As I pointed out in another thread, according to Obama's own CIA director, ISIS has grown 4400% under his watch. While he's taken out Bin Laden and other terror targets, we face a greater threat against terrorism today then when he took office. 2. Economic growth/Jobs-Obama certainly inherited a tough economic climate when he took office, so it's great that we've seen some improvement, but to me there is so much more possibility with our economy, and under his watch, more people have actually stopped working and dropped out of the labor force (meaning they are more dependent on social services), and the labor participation rate is the lowest since the Carter days. I would note that of all the past 5 Presidents, I think Reagan, Bush 43, and Obama inherited the worst situations, while Bush 41 and Clinton inherited the best. To me Bush 43 had the most difficult climate his first year dealing with a recession that Clinton left him, the Enron scandal and collapsing financial markets, and then 9/11. Anyone who would expect to see positive economic metrics (jobs, GDP growth) in his first 3 years in office simply is not being realistic. http://dailysignal.com/2012/09/07/two-huge-flaws-in-the-legend-of-the-clinton-economy/ 3. National Debt-Members of both parties are to blame for our national debt, but CBO predictions show that the rise in national debt in the coming years is going to explode even more than it has the past 10 years. Obamacare has made this rise in national debt worse. 4. Racial Tensions-Under Obama's watch, Racial Tensions have gotten worse, whether its the Ferguson Riots or the Baltimore riots or other acts. Polling supports that racial tensions have gotten worse. I liked what Obama said in 2008 that we are one America, and he would bring us together, but instead he's done the opposite, taking a divided nation and making it more divided. As for your comments about Christians, that's just ridiculous. I know we attend church every week and participate in programs to feed the hungry both in the US and around the world. We are constantly doing reachout activities to our local communities. And that is common across many Christian denominations. The difference is that Christian Conservatives do not feel its the Government's role to provide for all. Does this mean that the government should provide no social services...no, but when asked about increasing the size of government to pay for more citizens to be dependent on government, most Christians and Conservatives in general are going to oppose that. I could pose the same question to you. Hillary and Obama claim to be Christian. If that is the case, why are they proponents of abortion. I heard Hillary say in a speech a few weeks ago "I'm Pro-abortion."

I have no idea why Trump won or tied the Evangelical vote in many of the primaries as I would prefer someone with a better personal compass. With that said, I do expect many of those Evangelicals who did not support him in the primaries to get on board as we are down to two deeply flawed candidates, and Trump at least offers a chance to reverse the negative direction this country has been on for years. Hillary will simply offer more of the same. Thus, I do now expect many of those Evangelicals that did not support Trump in the primary to get on board the Trump train.

Wow, you are really on a roll with these laughable statements. First off, I will give Obama credit for taking out Bin Laden and other key targets, as any time this is accomplished its putting America First. With that said, Obama would never have caught Osama without the intelligence and interrogation policies put in place by Bush that he and the left strongly opposed. There were countless stories written about this at the time of Bin Laden's death. http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/09/05/no-president-obama-didnt-find-osama-bin-laden/ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/05/bush_led_bin_laden_dead_--_wheres_the_credit_109757.html http://townhall.com/columnists/guybenson/2011/05/05/vindication_three_controversial_bush_policies_help_take_down_bin_laden Second, just as Al Quada began to thrive during the Clinton years, ISIS has began to thrive under the Obama years, GROWING BY 4400%, and this according to Obama's own CIA director. http://freebeacon.com/national-security/cia-director-isis-has-grown-4400-percent-under-obama/

I think everyone knows Bill is a philanderer, but I am not sure everyone knows that Hillary was fully aware and worked to clean up the fallout from his rapes and affairs. http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/07/bills-sex-accusers-echo-trump-hillary-enabler/ Say what you want about this being a conservative site, but you can search for Juanita Broderick all over the place and find her story and testimony, and she is in her 70s and still suffers from being raped by Bill in the late 1970s. Think of that...Hillary, who claims to be a champion of women, tried to quiet Bill's victims in order for their political future to be "clean." You can choose to believe Bill and Hillary who both have a history of lying, but I can never believe the Clintons after their known deceptions and lies to the American people. For me, of all the wrongdoing Hillary has done over the years, this is the most disturbing and upsetting to me.

As I've stated before, this election is about the worse of two evils. On the one hand you have a bully and blowhard outside the political system that has a history of getting results. On the other hand you have a pathological liar who has spent her career inside the system and has little to show for it. Both candidates are deeply flawed when it comes to their character, and the election will come down to whether Americans want an insider or outsider.

Should we make the Repubs worst fear come true and give it to him? Amend the constitution!!! Why would Obama try to amend the constitution when he can just issue an executive order? Yeah he needs quite a few more of those; he's still behind Bush II and Regan. bnilhome knows this. He just conveniently ignores it whenever someone shows the numbers. It's not about the volume of executive orders but the extent at which Obama has tried to usurp the Constitution. Numbers don't always tell the story. Obama is more willing to push the limits on executive orders than his predecessors. As for numbers, I responded to your other thread with plenty of data showing that Obama has grown the national debt more than his predecessors, and that the projected growth from his policies is going to further expand the debt. I also showed that labor participation rate is lower under Obama than any POTUS since the late 1970s, but I guess you choose to look at your own numbers.

Wow, you do see things through Blue Donkey-Colored glasses. There is no comparison. Katrina is something that the country had a week's notice about, and that initially it appeared the levies would hold. I am the first to admit that Bush's initial response could have been better, but both political parties (including the idiotic mayor and governor at the time) was less than ideal. Counter that with the situation in Benghazi where ambassador Steven's had been asking for a YEAR for additional security, and Hillary did nothing about it. On top of that, after the attacks, she lied to the families and American people about why those 4 men were killed, and continues to lie to this day.

LINK So Obama isn't worse on National Debt than past presidents - and better than George W. Bush. Obama saw the crime rate fall during his presidency, not rise - as did the last several presidents And jobs have grown steadily throughout the Obama presidency, at a greater rate than that under George W. Bush So aside from being wrong on all those key points, yes, it's easy to see we're worse off now than we were seven years ago.

While I think the night-time atmosphere is ideal, if we have to pick between 11 and 2:30 I would take 2:30 assuming its nationally televised. It's unfortunate that our most difficult home game will not be at night, yet our most difficult road games will be at night.

Here's the thing....it's much more common for Republicans to call each other out when the screw up. When some have had affairs and such, they are pressured to step down or they lose a spot on a committee they are a part of. I'm not saying it happens 100% of the time, but it's way more common than on the Democratic side. I think it's healthy for key figures in a party to call out each other when they screw up. I think we view things things through our own partisan glasses. I would be very surprised to find any metric that proves Republicans are better moral police within their party. Remember: Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Any Fellow Republican." Donald Trump, a bit like Ron Paul, is carpetbagging the Republican Party, so criticism of Trump is a different animal, especially among those who think he's about to destroy the party. But here's a fun fact: the nearly 8 year Obama administration is among the most scandal free in history. Good times. Well there was Larry Craig, Trent Lott, and others that lost their seat or stepped down facing pressure for saying or doing something stupid. Had Bill Clinton been a GOP nominee in 1992 he would not have made it to the finish line. This past year's contest has been a total change of script with Trump winning despite his many dumb statements. Let's not forget Anthony Weiner hung around (pun intended) for some time after his lovely scandal. As for your assessment that Obama has been scandal free, how do you figure he was more scandal free than his predecessor? Can you explain? And if you really believe that, does that mean that the "right wing conspiracy republicans" that Hillary and many leftists claim are out to get them are not really as bad as Hillary claims? There's a big difference between an actual scandal and throwing everything you can think of at someone hoping it'll stick. So what is your definition of an actual scandal as it would pertain to Bush 43. Dick Chenney... Really, that is all you have? The point I'm trying to make is that Bush 43 and Obama have had fewer scandals following them than the Clintons, and it's not because the GOP is just after the Clintons and want to give Obama a reprieve. The Clintons are shady and always have been. The biggest "scandal' I could see in the Bush administration were the Halliburton contracts, and for Obama its' the IRS targeting Conservative groups (which has proven to be true) as well as the Benghazi cover up and state department email/server violations which speaks more to Hillary than Obama. I realize there are some that believe the Clintons are squeaky clean and you seem to be one of them, but most of the public does not believe or trust Hillary, period. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/08/hillary-clintons-honest-and-trustworthy-numbers-are-lower-than-ever-it-might-not-matter/ Boy, I don't know anyone who thinks the Clintons are squeaky clean. But every time a self-righteous Republican tries to vilify them, he trips over his own hypocrisy. Ken Starr is just the latest. Well before election day 1992, the public knew and believed Bill Clinton was a serial philanderer who got other people -- including Arkansas State Patrolmen -- to cover for him. They just didn't care as much as the Republicans wanted them too. Americans wanted a change, and ended up with a robust economy, budget surpluses, lower crime and few international crises. For the record, things are better today than they were seven years ago. That used to be the litmus test. Still waiting for one of you to tell me what period of greatness you want Donald Trump to return us to Again we all see things through a different lens. Over 2/3s of the country still believe this country is on the wrong track...that is about where it was 7 years ago. Taking out the period of time where we had a worldwide financial crisis (starting in September 2008 through 2009) which was a result of policies that both parties had their hands on, the job market has been ok but not great, and there are still more Americans now out of the labor force than at any point since the late 1970s. The world is a more dangerous place now with the rise of ISIS and the higher frequency of terrorism across the globe. Crime and racial tensions have gotten worse in the past 7 years as well. And let's not forget that the national debt has grown more under Obama than any other President before him. All prior Presidents are partially to blame for our national debt, but Obama has done little to nothing to reign in the national debt. This is really just scratching the surface.

Well the reason I posed the question is to see what the definition of "scandal" is to those claiming the Clintons really have had no scandals. To me much of your list of Bush 43 has to do with policy differences and not a scandal where there was intentional wrongdoing. For instance, with Katrina, I don't think Bush intentionally asked FEMA to be slow in responding, it just happened and he suffered some political fallout. The Patriot Act and Iraq wars were both put before Congress before being signed by the POTUS. And let's not forget that HIllary voted in favor of both of these policies. I guess you would include Obamacare as a scandal for the current POTUS since he lied to the American people in trying to sell the proposal?

Here's the thing....it's much more common for Republicans to call each other out when the screw up. When some have had affairs and such, they are pressured to step down or they lose a spot on a committee they are a part of. I'm not saying it happens 100% of the time, but it's way more common than on the Democratic side. I think it's healthy for key figures in a party to call out each other when they screw up. I think we view things things through our own partisan glasses. I would be very surprised to find any metric that proves Republicans are better moral police within their party. Remember: Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Any Fellow Republican." Donald Trump, a bit like Ron Paul, is carpetbagging the Republican Party, so criticism of Trump is a different animal, especially among those who think he's about to destroy the party. But here's a fun fact: the nearly 8 year Obama administration is among the most scandal free in history. Good times. Well there was Larry Craig, Trent Lott, and others that lost their seat or stepped down facing pressure for saying or doing something stupid. Had Bill Clinton been a GOP nominee in 1992 he would not have made it to the finish line. This past year's contest has been a total change of script with Trump winning despite his many dumb statements. Let's not forget Anthony Weiner hung around (pun intended) for some time after his lovely scandal. As for your assessment that Obama has been scandal free, how do you figure he was more scandal free than his predecessor? Can you explain? And if you really believe that, does that mean that the "right wing conspiracy republicans" that Hillary and many leftists claim are out to get them are not really as bad as Hillary claims? There's a big difference between an actual scandal and throwing everything you can think of at someone hoping it'll stick. So what is your definition of an actual scandal as it would pertain to Bush 43. Dick Chenney... Really, that is all you have? The point I'm trying to make is that Bush 43 and Obama have had fewer scandals following them than the Clintons, and it's not because the GOP is just after the Clintons and want to give Obama a reprieve. The Clintons are shady and always have been. The biggest "scandal' I could see in the Bush administration were the Halliburton contracts, and for Obama its' the IRS targeting Conservative groups (which has proven to be true) as well as the Benghazi cover up and state department email/server violations which speaks more to Hillary than Obama. I realize there are some that believe the Clintons are squeaky clean and you seem to be one of them, but most of the public does not believe or trust Hillary, period. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/08/hillary-clintons-honest-and-trustworthy-numbers-are-lower-than-ever-it-might-not-matter/

Should we make the Repubs worst fear come true and give it to him? Amend the constitution!!! Why would Obama try to amend the constitution when he can just issue an executive order?