The General Election

[zoogs]

What are the odds that a Nebraska Football message board would be populated with SO MANY "liberals?" It's a conservative state. Most folks on this site are living in Nebraska, or expats, or direct descendants of expats.

 

I mean, one could presume the "liberals" posting here are like the only dozen or so liberals actually in Nebraska...

 

... or one could maybe think that they're a bit extreme in their conservatism, and maybe the folks they're labeling "liberals" so liberally are actually pretty moderate.

 

 

Of course, that would require quite a bit more self-reflection than typically is exhibited here so...

 

Yeah, it's surprised me too. Is Lincoln perhaps a somewhat more liberal enclave within the state -- the way Austin is for Texas? I'm not familiar.

 

Granted, it's not like anyone here is regularly posting Jacobin stuff here -- although it's not like some of the more vocally conservative members are reading National Review either. Most of us on both sides tend to fall in the mainstream. It's just that for one, the mainstream appears to span the range from Breitbart to the NY Post.

 

You made a great point some time ago, knapp, and I suspect it's true. If this were a Cal-Berkeley board, we'd probably see a lot more ill-informed liberal loonies, and many of us HB liberals would've spent the last eight years arguing a very different side of the Obama debate.

 

I don't have deep roots in the state, so growing up on the coasts was a big part of my upbringing. Although I had strongly conservative influences as well, and one of the more liberal influences on me over the years has been the HB P&R forum.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, liberals should be troubled and conservatives encouraged by how aggressively Obama has pursued terrorists, even at the cost of innocent lives.

 

But it just doesn't play that way.

 

http://www.vocativ.com/342471/u-s-coaltion-just-dropped-its-50000th-bomb-on-isis/

Now you sound like HIllary Clinton talking about how many miles she has flown as SOS as one of her greatest accomplishments. Despite increasing the number of bombs dropped, the results have gotten worse. It's like claiming that we can solve the education issues in this country by throwing more money at it. Results are what matter, and your links are simply attempts to suggest Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism. Americans are more concerned now that any any other time since 2003 about the threat of a terror attack...does that signify that Obama has made this country feel safer?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/terror-attack-poll/

Fascinating.

 

I didn't expect you to actually read and digest the links I provided, but I wish you would have.

 

Again, the facts do not match up with the fears, and that kinda says everything about the current political discourse.

 

Do you want to venture why people believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? On both sides of the coin?

 

As for what is driving the divisiveness in this country.....really?

 

Have you read the words Obama has actually spoken? The actions he has, and hasn't taken?

 

Have you seen the incredibly racist sh#t thrown his way?

 

And uhm.....class warfare works in both directions, my friend, and the rich guys have been winning. Ironically, by getting people like you to believe billionaires are victims.

 

And ironically, the country doesn't feel safer right now because we are armed to the f'ing teeth, shooting everyone in sight and told not to talk about our insane fetish with guns. That's not Islamic Terrorism, folks. That's homegrown sociopathy.

 

Yay.

I think you just like to argue. I did read your link which is why I put forward the response that I did. No matter what the data and polling show, you will always come back to the same response that it's always the Republicans to blame, only Republicans are extreme, its all because of guns, etc.. So you honestly believe Obama has no responsibility for the current growth of terrorism or the increase in divisions in this country?

I think most of my posts have taken historical long views, incorporating political realities that transcend parties, including my most recent posts which advance the not-really-controversial observations that Hillary Clinton is more conservative than many are trying to paint her, and Ronald Reagan said and did many things that conservatives supposedly abhor.

So no...I never say "it's all this!" or "it's only that!" I'm trying to do the exact opposite.

 

Which means that when someone assigns all the responsibility for racial divisiveness to Barack Obama, or completely ignores things the entire Iraq War during their outrage over Benghazi, I have a strong urge to provide context.

 

I guess you could call that arguing.

 

Believe it or not, I don't like it. It's spiritually exhausting.

 

But it's what you do. For the children.

I have stated multiple times that most issues are complex, but at the same time the buck often stops with the Potus. Did I ever say that Obama was solely to blame for the current racial division? Nope. But I do think he was a major contributor. Since you do not think its ok to align most of the blame to our Presidents, who else besides the Bush administration do you fault for Iraq? Please be specific.

[zoogs]

I know this sounds crazy, but hear me out ...

 

I think racists are mainly to blame for the current racism.

[StPaulHusker]

Does Obama get credit for this or do we blame him? I'm confused

 

[Red Five]

From the NYT: How Donald Trump Picked His Running Mate

One day this past May, Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., reached out to a senior adviser to Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, who left the presidential race just a few weeks before. As a candidate, Kasich declared in March that Trump was “really not prepared to be president of the United States,” and the following month he took the highly unusual step of coordinating with his rival Senator Ted Cruz in an effort to deny Trump the nomination. But according to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?

When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.

Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?

“Making America great again” was the casual reply.

 

lol... Add the above to the theory that Trump doesn't really want to be president...

Meanwhile, Trump’s final choice for the job, Mike Pence, did not hail from a swing state or arrive with presidential-campaign experience, as would have been the case with Kasich. But he was a Republican, and a governor, and popular among conservative evangelicals. Most important, he knew how to say “yes” to Trump.

 

[mrandyk]

 

What are the odds that a Nebraska Football message board would be populated with SO MANY "liberals?" It's a conservative state. Most folks on this site are living in Nebraska, or expats, or direct descendants of expats.

 

I mean, one could presume the "liberals" posting here are like the only dozen or so liberals actually in Nebraska...

 

... or one could maybe think that they're a bit extreme in their conservatism, and maybe the folks they're labeling "liberals" so liberally are actually pretty moderate.

 

 

Of course, that would require quite a bit more self-reflection than typically is exhibited here so...

 

Going back to this poll, I've had this line of thought a few times. Nebraska is one of the most conservative states in the nation, hence I would think that the majority of Nebraska football fans lean to the conservative side. So why are there so many people on this board that are not voting for the conservative party's candidate?

 

As for the "liberal" thing, what makes one a liberal? Is it just voting for a D candidate? Is it believing in global warming? Is it thinking that LGBT people should have the same rights as straight people? Is it thinking that there needs to be greater gun control? Is it thinking that Obamacare is a good thing? Is it thinking that the free college should be enacted? etc, etc, etc.

 

The internet as a whole, outside of the masses on social media sites like Facebook, seems to lean towards the left from what I have seen. You could say it is because that's the internet that I choose to surround myself with but the example of a Nebraska forum leaning left does help uphold my claim. Take that same poll to your Facebook page full of fellow Nebraskans (assuming most of your friends are from Nebraska) and I bet you will get a better representation of how the state will poll in November, plus plenty of hateful ignorant comments that may have you unfriending them.

[knapplc]

Except this Nebraska forum doesn't "lean left." It's moderate. It's right down the middle when we take those "where do you lie on the political spectrum" quizzes.

 

The perception of a bias toward "leaning left" is that we have a few members who dogmatically, robotically espouse very, very right-leaning ideals. The perception that this forum is left-leaning comes from the centrists' need to correct lies and misstatements.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

 

Again, liberals should be troubled and conservatives encouraged by how aggressively Obama has pursued terrorists, even at the cost of innocent lives.

 

But it just doesn't play that way.

 

http://www.vocativ.com/342471/u-s-coaltion-just-dropped-its-50000th-bomb-on-isis/

Now you sound like HIllary Clinton talking about how many miles she has flown as SOS as one of her greatest accomplishments. Despite increasing the number of bombs dropped, the results have gotten worse. It's like claiming that we can solve the education issues in this country by throwing more money at it. Results are what matter, and your links are simply attempts to suggest Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism. Americans are more concerned now that any any other time since 2003 about the threat of a terror attack...does that signify that Obama has made this country feel safer?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/terror-attack-poll/

Fascinating.

 

I didn't expect you to actually read and digest the links I provided, but I wish you would have.

 

Again, the facts do not match up with the fears, and that kinda says everything about the current political discourse.

 

Do you want to venture why people believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? On both sides of the coin?

 

As for what is driving the divisiveness in this country.....really?

 

Have you read the words Obama has actually spoken? The actions he has, and hasn't taken?

 

Have you seen the incredibly racist sh#t thrown his way?

 

And uhm.....class warfare works in both directions, my friend, and the rich guys have been winning. Ironically, by getting people like you to believe billionaires are victims.

 

And ironically, the country doesn't feel safer right now because we are armed to the f'ing teeth, shooting everyone in sight and told not to talk about our insane fetish with guns. That's not Islamic Terrorism, folks. That's homegrown sociopathy.

 

Yay.

I think you just like to argue. I did read your link which is why I put forward the response that I did. No matter what the data and polling show, you will always come back to the same response that it's always the Republicans to blame, only Republicans are extreme, its all because of guns, etc.. So you honestly believe Obama has no responsibility for the current growth of terrorism or the increase in divisions in this country?

I think most of my posts have taken historical long views, incorporating political realities that transcend parties, including my most recent posts which advance the not-really-controversial observations that Hillary Clinton is more conservative than many are trying to paint her, and Ronald Reagan said and did many things that conservatives supposedly abhor.

So no...I never say "it's all this!" or "it's only that!" I'm trying to do the exact opposite.

 

Which means that when someone assigns all the responsibility for racial divisiveness to Barack Obama, or completely ignores things the entire Iraq War during their outrage over Benghazi, I have a strong urge to provide context.

 

I guess you could call that arguing.

 

Believe it or not, I don't like it. It's spiritually exhausting.

 

But it's what you do. For the children.

 

Since you do not think its ok to align most of the blame to our Presidents, who else besides the Bush administration do you fault for Iraq? Please be specific.

 

 

Well it would certainly include the 28 Senate Democrats who voted for Bush's war authorization, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Harry Reid.

 

And I'm not sure I blame Bush as much as I blamed Dick Cheney, who along with his Project for a New American Century cohorts got totally taken in by Ahmed Chalabi's self-serving and totally wrong predictions of how Iraq would react to the U.S. invasion. Actually, they were wrong about a whole lot of things.

 

But if we're talking about who has fueled the flames of divisiveness in the country the past seven years, you'd have to give a good hard look at the most obstructionist Congress in U.S. history, who actually made no secret of their intention to ensure nothing good happens during the Obama administration.

 

My problem with Obama is that he never hit back hard enough.

 

I'm guessing you will disagree.

[Moiraine]

Weird. RCP had an LA Times/USC poll showing Trump +1 but now it says it's a tie. Must've had a typo

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, liberals should be troubled and conservatives encouraged by how aggressively Obama has pursued terrorists, even at the cost of innocent lives.

 

But it just doesn't play that way.

 

http://www.vocativ.com/342471/u-s-coaltion-just-dropped-its-50000th-bomb-on-isis/

Now you sound like HIllary Clinton talking about how many miles she has flown as SOS as one of her greatest accomplishments. Despite increasing the number of bombs dropped, the results have gotten worse. It's like claiming that we can solve the education issues in this country by throwing more money at it. Results are what matter, and your links are simply attempts to suggest Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism. Americans are more concerned now that any any other time since 2003 about the threat of a terror attack...does that signify that Obama has made this country feel safer?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/terror-attack-poll/

Fascinating.

 

I didn't expect you to actually read and digest the links I provided, but I wish you would have.

 

Again, the facts do not match up with the fears, and that kinda says everything about the current political discourse.

 

Do you want to venture why people believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? On both sides of the coin?

 

As for what is driving the divisiveness in this country.....really?

 

Have you read the words Obama has actually spoken? The actions he has, and hasn't taken?

 

Have you seen the incredibly racist sh#t thrown his way?

 

And uhm.....class warfare works in both directions, my friend, and the rich guys have been winning. Ironically, by getting people like you to believe billionaires are victims.

 

And ironically, the country doesn't feel safer right now because we are armed to the f'ing teeth, shooting everyone in sight and told not to talk about our insane fetish with guns. That's not Islamic Terrorism, folks. That's homegrown sociopathy.

 

Yay.

I think you just like to argue. I did read your link which is why I put forward the response that I did. No matter what the data and polling show, you will always come back to the same response that it's always the Republicans to blame, only Republicans are extreme, its all because of guns, etc.. So you honestly believe Obama has no responsibility for the current growth of terrorism or the increase in divisions in this country?

I think most of my posts have taken historical long views, incorporating political realities that transcend parties, including my most recent posts which advance the not-really-controversial observations that Hillary Clinton is more conservative than many are trying to paint her, and Ronald Reagan said and did many things that conservatives supposedly abhor.

So no...I never say "it's all this!" or "it's only that!" I'm trying to do the exact opposite.

 

Which means that when someone assigns all the responsibility for racial divisiveness to Barack Obama, or completely ignores things the entire Iraq War during their outrage over Benghazi, I have a strong urge to provide context.

 

I guess you could call that arguing.

 

Believe it or not, I don't like it. It's spiritually exhausting.

 

But it's what you do. For the children.

 

Since you do not think its ok to align most of the blame to our Presidents, who else besides the Bush administration do you fault for Iraq? Please be specific.

 

 

Well it would certainly include the 28 Senate Democrats who voted for Bush's war authorization, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Harry Reid.

 

And I'm not sure I blame Bush as much as I blamed Dick Cheney, who along with his Project for a New American Century cohorts got totally taken in by Ahmed Chalabi's self-serving and totally wrong predictions of how Iraq would react to the U.S. invasion. Actually, they were wrong about a whole lot of things.

 

But if we're talking about who has fueled the flames of divisiveness in the country the past seven years, you'd have to give a good hard look at the most obstructionist Congress in U.S. history, who actually made no secret of their intention to ensure nothing good happens during the Obama administration.

 

My problem with Obama is that he never hit back hard enough.

 

I'm guessing you will disagree.

 

 

Wow, you just stated that no entity should be blamed for current challenges, yet you ended by blaming the GOP Congress. I definitely do not agree with you on this. My thought is that the President, regardless of party, has the burden to bring elected officials together and find common ground. When he first took office, I know John McCain and many other Republicans wanted to give Obama a chance as he was this new aspirational figure. And he had a great chance to address issues such as immigration reform where he probably could have found common ground. Instead, he jumped straight into Obamacare which was the most divisive issue he could have possibly pushed. His decision to push Obamacare created the harsh divide we see today between the executive and legislative branch. I think he made a political decision to ram Obamacare through while he had an all Democratic Congress, but it was a strategic mistake for reaching consensus on future legislation. Moreover, in 2010 the GOP won huge numbers in the mid-terms, and unlike Bill Clinton in 1994, Obama showed no willingness to listen to the American people and indicate that "the era of big government" was over, or make some concessions that he needed to do more to work with Congress. If Trump somehow wins in November, I will hold the expectation of him that he must set the right tone and take the lead in partnering with Congress, whether it's a Democratic or Republican Congress. As for Obama hitting back, I think he has done that and moreso. He shows much more passion and energy when he goes after Republican than when he does regarding terrorists. When the Brussels attack happened he was very mellow and nonchalant about the horrific attack, yet I remember that same week he was asked a question about Republicans in Congress, and his hold demeanor changed and he was highly aggressive.

[huKSer]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, liberals should be troubled and conservatives encouraged by how aggressively Obama has pursued terrorists, even at the cost of innocent lives.

 

But it just doesn't play that way.

 

http://www.vocativ.com/342471/u-s-coaltion-just-dropped-its-50000th-bomb-on-isis/

Now you sound like HIllary Clinton talking about how many miles she has flown as SOS as one of her greatest accomplishments. Despite increasing the number of bombs dropped, the results have gotten worse. It's like claiming that we can solve the education issues in this country by throwing more money at it. Results are what matter, and your links are simply attempts to suggest Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism. Americans are more concerned now that any any other time since 2003 about the threat of a terror attack...does that signify that Obama has made this country feel safer?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/terror-attack-poll/

Fascinating.

 

I didn't expect you to actually read and digest the links I provided, but I wish you would have.

 

Again, the facts do not match up with the fears, and that kinda says everything about the current political discourse.

 

Do you want to venture why people believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? On both sides of the coin?

 

As for what is driving the divisiveness in this country.....really?

 

Have you read the words Obama has actually spoken? The actions he has, and hasn't taken?

 

Have you seen the incredibly racist sh#t thrown his way?

 

And uhm.....class warfare works in both directions, my friend, and the rich guys have been winning. Ironically, by getting people like you to believe billionaires are victims.

 

And ironically, the country doesn't feel safer right now because we are armed to the f'ing teeth, shooting everyone in sight and told not to talk about our insane fetish with guns. That's not Islamic Terrorism, folks. That's homegrown sociopathy.

 

Yay.

I think you just like to argue. I did read your link which is why I put forward the response that I did. No matter what the data and polling show, you will always come back to the same response that it's always the Republicans to blame, only Republicans are extreme, its all because of guns, etc.. So you honestly believe Obama has no responsibility for the current growth of terrorism or the increase in divisions in this country?

I think most of my posts have taken historical long views, incorporating political realities that transcend parties, including my most recent posts which advance the not-really-controversial observations that Hillary Clinton is more conservative than many are trying to paint her, and Ronald Reagan said and did many things that conservatives supposedly abhor.

So no...I never say "it's all this!" or "it's only that!" I'm trying to do the exact opposite.

 

Which means that when someone assigns all the responsibility for racial divisiveness to Barack Obama, or completely ignores things the entire Iraq War during their outrage over Benghazi, I have a strong urge to provide context.

 

I guess you could call that arguing.

 

Believe it or not, I don't like it. It's spiritually exhausting.

 

But it's what you do. For the children.

 

Since you do not think its ok to align most of the blame to our Presidents, who else besides the Bush administration do you fault for Iraq? Please be specific.

 

 

Well it would certainly include the 28 Senate Democrats who voted for Bush's war authorization, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Harry Reid.

 

And I'm not sure I blame Bush as much as I blamed Dick Cheney, who along with his Project for a New American Century cohorts got totally taken in by Ahmed Chalabi's self-serving and totally wrong predictions of how Iraq would react to the U.S. invasion. Actually, they were wrong about a whole lot of things.

 

But if we're talking about who has fueled the flames of divisiveness in the country the past seven years, you'd have to give a good hard look at the most obstructionist Congress in U.S. history, who actually made no secret of their intention to ensure nothing good happens during the Obama administration.

 

My problem with Obama is that he never hit back hard enough.

 

I'm guessing you will disagree.

 

 

Wow, you just stated that no entity should be blamed for current challenges, yet you ended by blaming the GOP Congress. I definitely do not agree with you on this. My thought is that the President, regardless of party, has the burden to bring elected officials together and find common ground. When he first took office, I know John McCain and many other Republicans wanted to give Obama a chance as he was this new aspirational figure. And he had a great chance to address issues such as immigration reform where he probably could have found common ground. Instead, he jumped straight into Obamacare which was the most divisive issue he could have possibly pushed. His decision to push Obamacare created the harsh divide we see today between the executive and legislative branch. I think he made a political decision to ram Obamacare through while he had an all Democratic Congress, but it was a strategic mistake for reaching consensus on future legislation. Moreover, in 2010 the GOP won huge numbers in the mid-terms, and unlike Bill Clinton in 1994, Obama showed no willingness to listen to the American people and indicate that "the era of big government" was over, or make some concessions that he needed to do more to work with Congress. If Trump somehow wins in November, I will hold the expectation of him that he must set the right tone and take the lead in partnering with Congress, whether it's a Democratic or Republican Congress. As for Obama hitting back, I think he has done that and moreso. He shows much more passion and energy when he goes after Republican than when he does regarding terrorists. When the Brussels attack happened he was very mellow and nonchalant about the horrific attack, yet I remember that same week he was asked a question about Republicans in Congress, and his hold demeanor changed and he was highly aggressive.

 

Are you channeling 84HuskerLaw?

[mrandyk]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, liberals should be troubled and conservatives encouraged by how aggressively Obama has pursued terrorists, even at the cost of innocent lives.

 

But it just doesn't play that way.

 

http://www.vocativ.com/342471/u-s-coaltion-just-dropped-its-50000th-bomb-on-isis/

Now you sound like HIllary Clinton talking about how many miles she has flown as SOS as one of her greatest accomplishments. Despite increasing the number of bombs dropped, the results have gotten worse. It's like claiming that we can solve the education issues in this country by throwing more money at it. Results are what matter, and your links are simply attempts to suggest Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism. Americans are more concerned now that any any other time since 2003 about the threat of a terror attack...does that signify that Obama has made this country feel safer?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/terror-attack-poll/

Fascinating.

 

I didn't expect you to actually read and digest the links I provided, but I wish you would have.

 

Again, the facts do not match up with the fears, and that kinda says everything about the current political discourse.

 

Do you want to venture why people believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? On both sides of the coin?

 

As for what is driving the divisiveness in this country.....really?

 

Have you read the words Obama has actually spoken? The actions he has, and hasn't taken?

 

Have you seen the incredibly racist sh#t thrown his way?

 

And uhm.....class warfare works in both directions, my friend, and the rich guys have been winning. Ironically, by getting people like you to believe billionaires are victims.

 

And ironically, the country doesn't feel safer right now because we are armed to the f'ing teeth, shooting everyone in sight and told not to talk about our insane fetish with guns. That's not Islamic Terrorism, folks. That's homegrown sociopathy.

 

Yay.

I think you just like to argue. I did read your link which is why I put forward the response that I did. No matter what the data and polling show, you will always come back to the same response that it's always the Republicans to blame, only Republicans are extreme, its all because of guns, etc.. So you honestly believe Obama has no responsibility for the current growth of terrorism or the increase in divisions in this country?

I think most of my posts have taken historical long views, incorporating political realities that transcend parties, including my most recent posts which advance the not-really-controversial observations that Hillary Clinton is more conservative than many are trying to paint her, and Ronald Reagan said and did many things that conservatives supposedly abhor.

So no...I never say "it's all this!" or "it's only that!" I'm trying to do the exact opposite.

 

Which means that when someone assigns all the responsibility for racial divisiveness to Barack Obama, or completely ignores things the entire Iraq War during their outrage over Benghazi, I have a strong urge to provide context.

 

I guess you could call that arguing.

 

Believe it or not, I don't like it. It's spiritually exhausting.

 

But it's what you do. For the children.

 

Since you do not think its ok to align most of the blame to our Presidents, who else besides the Bush administration do you fault for Iraq? Please be specific.

 

 

Well it would certainly include the 28 Senate Democrats who voted for Bush's war authorization, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Harry Reid.

 

And I'm not sure I blame Bush as much as I blamed Dick Cheney, who along with his Project for a New American Century cohorts got totally taken in by Ahmed Chalabi's self-serving and totally wrong predictions of how Iraq would react to the U.S. invasion. Actually, they were wrong about a whole lot of things.

 

But if we're talking about who has fueled the flames of divisiveness in the country the past seven years, you'd have to give a good hard look at the most obstructionist Congress in U.S. history, who actually made no secret of their intention to ensure nothing good happens during the Obama administration.

 

My problem with Obama is that he never hit back hard enough.

 

I'm guessing you will disagree.

 

 

Wow, you just stated that no entity should be blamed for current challenges, yet you ended by blaming the GOP Congress. I definitely do not agree with you on this. My thought is that the President, regardless of party, has the burden to bring elected officials together and find common ground. When he first took office, I know John McCain and many other Republicans wanted to give Obama a chance as he was this new aspirational figure. And he had a great chance to address issues such as immigration reform where he probably could have found common ground. Instead, he jumped straight into Obamacare which was the most divisive issue he could have possibly pushed. His decision to push Obamacare created the harsh divide we see today between the executive and legislative branch. I think he made a political decision to ram Obamacare through while he had an all Democratic Congress, but it was a strategic mistake for reaching consensus on future legislation. Moreover, in 2010 the GOP won huge numbers in the mid-terms, and unlike Bill Clinton in 1994, Obama showed no willingness to listen to the American people and indicate that "the era of big government" was over, or make some concessions that he needed to do more to work with Congress. If Trump somehow wins in November, I will hold the expectation of him that he must set the right tone and take the lead in partnering with Congress, whether it's a Democratic or Republican Congress. As for Obama hitting back, I think he has done that and moreso. He shows much more passion and energy when he goes after Republican than when he does regarding terrorists. When the Brussels attack happened he was very mellow and nonchalant about the horrific attack, yet I remember that same week he was asked a question about Republicans in Congress, and his hold demeanor changed and he was highly aggressive.

 

Great. And if a Republican president has to deal with a Democratic congress that refuses to pass anything?

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, liberals should be troubled and conservatives encouraged by how aggressively Obama has pursued terrorists, even at the cost of innocent lives.

 

But it just doesn't play that way.

 

http://www.vocativ.com/342471/u-s-coaltion-just-dropped-its-50000th-bomb-on-isis/

Now you sound like HIllary Clinton talking about how many miles she has flown as SOS as one of her greatest accomplishments. Despite increasing the number of bombs dropped, the results have gotten worse. It's like claiming that we can solve the education issues in this country by throwing more money at it. Results are what matter, and your links are simply attempts to suggest Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism. Americans are more concerned now that any any other time since 2003 about the threat of a terror attack...does that signify that Obama has made this country feel safer?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/terror-attack-poll/

Fascinating.

 

I didn't expect you to actually read and digest the links I provided, but I wish you would have.

 

Again, the facts do not match up with the fears, and that kinda says everything about the current political discourse.

 

Do you want to venture why people believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? On both sides of the coin?

 

As for what is driving the divisiveness in this country.....really?

 

Have you read the words Obama has actually spoken? The actions he has, and hasn't taken?

 

Have you seen the incredibly racist sh#t thrown his way?

 

And uhm.....class warfare works in both directions, my friend, and the rich guys have been winning. Ironically, by getting people like you to believe billionaires are victims.

 

And ironically, the country doesn't feel safer right now because we are armed to the f'ing teeth, shooting everyone in sight and told not to talk about our insane fetish with guns. That's not Islamic Terrorism, folks. That's homegrown sociopathy.

 

Yay.

I think you just like to argue. I did read your link which is why I put forward the response that I did. No matter what the data and polling show, you will always come back to the same response that it's always the Republicans to blame, only Republicans are extreme, its all because of guns, etc.. So you honestly believe Obama has no responsibility for the current growth of terrorism or the increase in divisions in this country?

I think most of my posts have taken historical long views, incorporating political realities that transcend parties, including my most recent posts which advance the not-really-controversial observations that Hillary Clinton is more conservative than many are trying to paint her, and Ronald Reagan said and did many things that conservatives supposedly abhor.

So no...I never say "it's all this!" or "it's only that!" I'm trying to do the exact opposite.

 

Which means that when someone assigns all the responsibility for racial divisiveness to Barack Obama, or completely ignores things the entire Iraq War during their outrage over Benghazi, I have a strong urge to provide context.

 

I guess you could call that arguing.

 

Believe it or not, I don't like it. It's spiritually exhausting.

 

But it's what you do. For the children.

 

Since you do not think its ok to align most of the blame to our Presidents, who else besides the Bush administration do you fault for Iraq? Please be specific.

 

 

Well it would certainly include the 28 Senate Democrats who voted for Bush's war authorization, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Harry Reid.

 

And I'm not sure I blame Bush as much as I blamed Dick Cheney, who along with his Project for a New American Century cohorts got totally taken in by Ahmed Chalabi's self-serving and totally wrong predictions of how Iraq would react to the U.S. invasion. Actually, they were wrong about a whole lot of things.

 

But if we're talking about who has fueled the flames of divisiveness in the country the past seven years, you'd have to give a good hard look at the most obstructionist Congress in U.S. history, who actually made no secret of their intention to ensure nothing good happens during the Obama administration.

 

My problem with Obama is that he never hit back hard enough.

 

I'm guessing you will disagree.

 

 

Wow, you just stated that no entity should be blamed for current challenges, yet you ended by blaming the GOP Congress. I definitely do not agree with you on this. My thought is that the President, regardless of party, has the burden to bring elected officials together and find common ground. When he first took office, I know John McCain and many other Republicans wanted to give Obama a chance as he was this new aspirational figure. And he had a great chance to address issues such as immigration reform where he probably could have found common ground. Instead, he jumped straight into Obamacare which was the most divisive issue he could have possibly pushed. His decision to push Obamacare created the harsh divide we see today between the executive and legislative branch. I think he made a political decision to ram Obamacare through while he had an all Democratic Congress, but it was a strategic mistake for reaching consensus on future legislation. Moreover, in 2010 the GOP won huge numbers in the mid-terms, and unlike Bill Clinton in 1994, Obama showed no willingness to listen to the American people and indicate that "the era of big government" was over, or make some concessions that he needed to do more to work with Congress. If Trump somehow wins in November, I will hold the expectation of him that he must set the right tone and take the lead in partnering with Congress, whether it's a Democratic or Republican Congress. As for Obama hitting back, I think he has done that and moreso. He shows much more passion and energy when he goes after Republican than when he does regarding terrorists. When the Brussels attack happened he was very mellow and nonchalant about the horrific attack, yet I remember that same week he was asked a question about Republicans in Congress, and his hold demeanor changed and he was highly aggressive.

 

Great. And if a Republican president has to deal with a Democratic congress that refuses to pass anything?

 

 

You act as though that has never happened. In 2006 Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid campaigned on stopping Bush, they won Congress that year, and obstructred at every chance possible. I don't think either party who holds Congress should do that, but as I stated earlier, I think it's up to the POTUS to set an agenda where both sides may find common ground and seek shared outcomes, and LEAD. There are 538 members of Congress...but only one President. The President sets the tone for his administration and how the federal government will work for the American people.

[Red Five]

Weird. RCP had an LA Times/USC poll showing Trump +1 but now it says it's a tie. Must've had a typo

Bad guys updating the data of that poll. Sad!

[Red Five]

For the GJ fans out there:

 

161 Electoral Votes a Real Possibility for Gary Johnson

 

I am sure the libertarian vindicator is an unbiased source.