Again totally wrong commentary from a liberal or worst a Liberal Redneck .

Donald Trump isn’t ripping up a treaty; he’s walking away from Barack Obama’s personal pledge. President Obama made a deal with Iran without support from Congress. Trump is pulling out of President Obama’s personal commitment, and he doesn’t need Congress’s support to do” it because Congress had nothing to do with authorizing this.

“Progress is not a straight line, there’s going to be moments in any given part of the world where things are terrible, But, having said all that, I think things are going to work out.” President Barack Obama

Funny how the taunts right-wingers use to describe lefties (such as 'snowflake') are actually far more true of themselves.

They value 'manliness', toughness, and martial abilities above all else, but it seems like every one of them found some way to avoid serving in the military (though Ted Nugent literally shitting his pants is still the best example of that particular cowardice).

When it comes down to it, they're all a bunch of lying, cowardly, sissy men, and sometimes I wish Barack Obama would step into the ring with Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, or Donald (or hell, I'd do it if given a chance, but nobody knows who I am, so that's not very likely).

Never forget. Trump won by 70,000 votes. And lost the popular vote by over 3,000,000 votes. To say that these pundits' "entire analytical framework was drastically and catastrophically faulty" is totally wrong. They were wrong by whatever percentage of the total votes 70,000 votes is. Or maybe double that, to cement a Clinton lead. So they were wrong by 140,000 / 138,884,643 = 0.00100803081 so

They were wrong by 0.10%.

And based on the population who voted they were right by (Clinton's votes: 65,844,610) - (Trump votes: 62,979,636) = 2,864,974 votes / 138,884,643 = 0.02062844341.

They were right by 2.06%. They were over 20 times more right than they were wrong.

Also, regarding Economic and Racial anxiety, BOTH were correlated as predictors of support for Trump. That does not mean that every person who was Economically anxious was also Racially anxious but I would bet those populations do overlap somewhat, partly because the question isn't just 'Are you economically anxious?' but 'Are you economically anxious while Barack Obama is in the White House?'

I don't necessarily feel dumber having watched this video, but it's clearly very biased, and I do feel like it was a waste of my time to see it. The video's writer is obviously just looking to name a few Liberal up and comers and attempt to cut them down.

Also, consider the post source. @bobknight33 is as Russian-trolly as Russian trolls get. This is exactly the kind of right-wing propaganda they love to use to bash Liberals in America and push them further towards their wing.

Intolerance is a virtue.

With all love and respect to my friends in this thread, I wasn't joking and I don't apologise. Barack Obama is a subhuman nigger and he should be strung up to die like a nigger.

When you participate in the sort of widespread oppression and generalised evil that he has, both as an individual and a member of an unabashedly fascist government; when you, say, lock free people in cages because you don't approve of the things they choose to put in their own bodies; when you commit those crimes against humanity, you lose any claim you might have had to be considered a part of our species.

So he's a nigger - as you would expect him to be, plebiscite systems won't elect human beings while humanity is in the extreme minority in every country in the world.

The fact that you're all less concerned with the hundreds of thousands of real lives this megalomaniacal nazi turd-demon has destroyed (what a guy) than you are with a little name-calling, speaks to the total moral degeneracy of today's faux-progressive orthodoxy.

Canadians can view here
http://etcanada.com/video/836049475585/jingle-barack/

Donald Trump Keeps Calling Barack Obama has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

Just let it ring Barack ...

Barack Obama Singing Stressed Out by Twenty One Pilots has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

Barack Obama Singing Stressed Out by Twenty One Pilots has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

No, this is wrong. Hillary had very strong support from the Black/Latino voters. Saying that Hillary had weak support in that bloc is disingenuous at best when she had something like > 80% of the Black and Hispanic vote. Less than Barack, yes. Absolutely in no way is it 'very weak support'. She had very strong support from that Bloc.

And with reference to Bernie, I'm not so sure his support was there. Hillary did win the popular vote in the in the primaries by 2 million votes. Yes, it's possible the calling of the race for Hillary influenced the people but that ignores the choice/will of the people.

I love Snopes. Of course, the devil is in the details:

"The editor of the biographical text about Barack Obama which was included in the booklet maintained that the mention of Kenya was an error on her part and was not based on any information provided to her by Obama himself:

"Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients.

"'You're undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time," Goderich wrote. "There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.'

"A New York Times article about Barack Obama published in 1990, a year before the Acton & Dystel promotional booklet was issued, correctly identified his birthplace as Hawaii.

"A variant of this item paired the image shown above with the statement "Big Oops! Harvard Law Review did not cleanse its 1991 yearbook which states he was born in Kenya." As noted above, the biographical sketch pictured above was put out by a literacy agency; it was not part of any yearbook published by Harvard."

http://www.thetoptens.com/worst-us-presidents/


http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/3995/ranking-modern-us-presidents#4-barack-obama

Obama is a disaster.

Barack Obama is president when he said this. Hillary is not yet.

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837