Trump nominates another pip as federal judge!

[Esmeralda]

This is awesome.
Trump is going to replace a lot of the far left wing knuttjob Democrat federal judges.

With anyone he can dig up, even if they are not qualified. Cool.

 

[Esmeralda]

Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency?

Donald trump is testing the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so ill-informed about the nature of his office, so openly mendacious, so self-destructive, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the courts, the press, Congress (including members of his own party), and even senior officials within his own administration. Trump is a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Andrew Jackson’s rage; Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; James Buchanan’s incompetence and spite; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s paranoia, insecurity, and indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s lack of self-control and reflexive dishonesty.

You should start a thread with this.

 

[Syriusly]

He didn't fail to answer, he answered all the questions and some he did not know the answers to.

Clearly this is one of the most qualified people in America to be a Federal judge.

He hasn't tried a case to a verdict, argued a motion, or taken a deposition by himself. Clearly Trump can't find anyone more qualified than this guy- because none of the THOUSANDS of sitting state judges are as qualified......or perhaps not quite a predictably partisan.....

In the clip, Senator John Kennedy asked the five nominees up for confirmation whether they’d ever tried a case to a verdict. Petersen admitted that he hadn’t, and Kennedy went on to spend the five minutes he was allotted peppering Petersen with run-of-the-mill legal questions. It quickly became clear that Petersen seemed to lack the knowledge expected of a federal judge. “As a trial judge, you’re obviously going to have witnesses. Can you tell me what the Daubert standard is?” Kennedy asked. “Senator Kennedy, I don’t have that readily at my disposal, but I would be happy to take a closer look at that. That is not something I’ve had to contend with,” Petersen replied. Kennedy then asked Petersen if he could define such terms as a motion in limine, the Younger abstention doctrine, and the Pullman abstention doctrine. Petersen, like a first-year law school student caught in the headlights, demurred, ultimately admitting he’d never argued a motion in state or federal court or taken a deposition by himself.

 

[2aguy]

Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency?

Donald trump is testing the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so ill-informed about the nature of his office, so openly mendacious, so self-destructive, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the courts, the press, Congress (including members of his own party), and even senior officials within his own administration. Trump is a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Andrew Jackson’s rage; Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; James Buchanan’s incompetence and spite; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s paranoia, insecurity, and indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s lack of self-control and reflexive dishonesty.

Wow....nothing you posted is remotely true or accurate.

 

[2aguy]

He didn't fail to answer, he answered all the questions and some he did not know the answers to.

Clearly this is one of the most qualified people in America to be a Federal judge.

He hasn't tried a case to a verdict, argued a motion, or taken a deposition by himself. Clearly Trump can't find anyone more qualified than this guy- because none of the THOUSANDS of sitting state judges are as qualified......or perhaps not quite a predictably partisan.....

In the clip, Senator John Kennedy asked the five nominees up for confirmation whether they’d ever tried a case to a verdict. Petersen admitted that he hadn’t, and Kennedy went on to spend the five minutes he was allotted peppering Petersen with run-of-the-mill legal questions. It quickly became clear that Petersen seemed to lack the knowledge expected of a federal judge. “As a trial judge, you’re obviously going to have witnesses. Can you tell me what the Daubert standard is?” Kennedy asked. “Senator Kennedy, I don’t have that readily at my disposal, but I would be happy to take a closer look at that. That is not something I’ve had to contend with,” Petersen replied. Kennedy then asked Petersen if he could define such terms as a motion in limine, the Younger abstention doctrine, and the Pullman abstention doctrine. Petersen, like a first-year law school student caught in the headlights, demurred, ultimately admitting he’d never argued a motion in state or federal court or taken a deposition by himself.

To repeat....


Is Ridicule of Federal Judge Nominee Justified?

Matthew Petersen is not a litigator. He is a member of the Federal Election Commission and has expertise with respect to election law:

Matthew S. Petersen was nominated to the Federal Election Commission by President George W. Bush on June 12, 2008, and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on June 24, 2008.

From 2005 until his appointment to the Commission, Mr. Petersen served as Republican chief counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. In this capacity, Mr. Petersen provided counsel on issues relating to federal campaign finance and election administration laws as well as the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Prior to this, Mr. Petersen served as counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration. During his tenure, Mr. Petersen was extensively involved in the crafting of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”) and the House-Senate negotiations that culminated in HAVA’s passage. From 1999 to 2002, Mr. Petersen specialized in election and campaign finance law at the law firm of Wiley Rein LLP in Washington, DC.

The lawyers who have the most thorough understanding of substantive areas of the law–real estate, taxes, corporate governance and so on–are generally not litigators. Do we really want to say that all of these non-litigators–the majority of lawyers–are unfit to be trial judges?

During my career as a lawyer, I took thousands of depositions, argued countless motions, and tried 100 jury cases. Would that experience give me a leg up as a newly-appointed trial court judge? Of course. But does it mean that one of my non-litigator partners would be disqualified from such an appointment, no matter how good a lawyer he or she might be? I don’t think so.

I know what the Daubert standard and motions in limine are, although I have no idea what the difference between the two abstention doctrines mentioned by Senator Kennedy might be. But these are things that come with being a litigator. Newly-appointed judges attend “judge school,” where they are taught the finer points of the rules of evidence. Still, trial judges are like basketball referees. I’ve never met two trial judges who had exactly the same interpretation of the rules.

Most lawyers who are appointed to the bench in both federal and state courts have backgrounds in litigation. No doubt that is appropriate. However, it is by no means rare for non-litigator lawyers to be appointed, or win election, to the bench. In my opinion, that is a good thing. I don’t see why a minority of lawyers–litigators–should have a monopoly on the bench.

I don’t know whether Matthew Petersen will make a good judge or not. But in my view, he doesn’t deserve to be ridiculed because his highly-successful law caree

 

[ScienceRocks]

No,

Violating millions of peoples human rights to live is just wrong

 

[Syriusly]

He didn't fail to answer, he answered all the questions and some he did not know the answers to.

Clearly this is one of the most qualified people in America to be a Federal judge.

He hasn't tried a case to a verdict, argued a motion, or taken a deposition by himself. Clearly Trump can't find anyone more qualified than this guy- because none of the THOUSANDS of sitting state judges are as qualified......or perhaps not quite a predictably partisan.....

In the clip, Senator John Kennedy asked the five nominees up for confirmation whether they’d ever tried a case to a verdict. Petersen admitted that he hadn’t, and Kennedy went on to spend the five minutes he was allotted peppering Petersen with run-of-the-mill legal questions. It quickly became clear that Petersen seemed to lack the knowledge expected of a federal judge. “As a trial judge, you’re obviously going to have witnesses. Can you tell me what the Daubert standard is?” Kennedy asked. “Senator Kennedy, I don’t have that readily at my disposal, but I would be happy to take a closer look at that. That is not something I’ve had to contend with,” Petersen replied. Kennedy then asked Petersen if he could define such terms as a motion in limine, the Younger abstention doctrine, and the Pullman abstention doctrine. Petersen, like a first-year law school student caught in the headlights, demurred, ultimately admitting he’d never argued a motion in state or federal court or taken a deposition by himself.

To repeat....


Is Ridicule of Federal Judge Nominee Justified?

Matthew Petersen is not a litigator. He is a member of the Federal Election Commission and has expertise with respect to election law:

Matthew S. Petersen was nominated to the Federal Election Commission by President George W. Bush on June 12, 2008, and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on June 24, 2008.

From 2005 until his appointment to the Commission, Mr. Petersen served as Republican chief counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. In this capacity, Mr. Petersen provided counsel on issues relating to federal campaign finance and election administration laws as well as the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Prior to this, Mr. Petersen served as counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration. During his tenure, Mr. Petersen was extensively involved in the crafting of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”) and the House-Senate negotiations that culminated in HAVA’s passage. From 1999 to 2002, Mr. Petersen specialized in election and campaign finance law at the law firm of Wiley Rein LLP in Washington, DC.

The lawyers who have the most thorough understanding of substantive areas of the law–real estate, taxes, corporate governance and so on–are generally not litigators. Do we really want to say that all of these non-litigators–the majority of lawyers–are unfit to be trial judges?

During my career as a lawyer, I took thousands of depositions, argued countless motions, and tried 100 jury cases. Would that experience give me a leg up as a newly-appointed trial court judge? Of course. But does it mean that one of my non-litigator partners would be disqualified from such an appointment, no matter how good a lawyer he or she might be? I don’t think so.

I know what the Daubert standard and motions in limine are, although I have no idea what the difference between the two abstention doctrines mentioned by Senator Kennedy might be. But these are things that come with being a litigator. Newly-appointed judges attend “judge school,” where they are taught the finer points of the rules of evidence. Still, trial judges are like basketball referees. I’ve never met two trial judges who had exactly the same interpretation of the rules.

Most lawyers who are appointed to the bench in both federal and state courts have backgrounds in litigation. No doubt that is appropriate. However, it is by no means rare for non-litigator lawyers to be appointed, or win election, to the bench. In my opinion, that is a good thing. I don’t see why a minority of lawyers–litigators–should have a monopoly on the bench.

I don’t know whether Matthew Petersen will make a good judge or not. But in my view, he doesn’t deserve to be ridiculed because his highly-successful law caree

to repeat

He hasn't tried a case to a verdict, argued a motion, or taken a deposition by himself.

And this is the best Trump can find to be a Federal Judge?

Perhaps your post is right- perhaps a person with absolutely no experience in the courtroom, with no experience with a trial- would be the best person to run a courtroom, and to run a trial.

You know- what federal judges actually do.
Trump's judge pick had a very bad day (opinion) - CNN
Kennedy then proceeded with a series of follow-up questions that demonstrated Petersen's utter lack of qualifications for a federal district court appointment. The nominee was forced to admit, in sequential answers, that he never tried a jury case in a "civil" or "criminal" court. In fact, he had never tried a case of any sort in either "state" or "federal court," not even "bench" trial (trial before a judge rather than a jury), nor had he ever even argued a motion or conducted a deposition on his own.

The nominee was then forced to admit a dismal or entirely nonexistent level of knowledge regarding the two bibles of federal courtrooms: the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In his coup de grace, the Louisiana senator asked Petersen about his familiarity with the "Daubert standard" and "Motions in Limine" two subjects known to even the most novice of federal trial lawyers relating to the evaluation of expert testimony and the limitation or exclusion of evidence from consideration at trial.
Petersen was clueless, but at all times willing to take, as he might put it, a "deep dive" presumably to learn the subjects in question if necessary at some time in the future. He apparently was unaware that issues like these routinely occur during fast moving federal trials and there is no time for swimming lessons for the inexperienced.
Kennedy concluded with two particularly interesting questions, given President Trump's promise to remake the federal courts with conservative judges who interpret rather than make law. The senator asked if the nominee knew about the Younger and Pullman abstention doctrines. Both are federal doctrines that are beloved by conservatives as they relate to the concept of federal abstention from interference with state court proceedings until they have run their course. Petersen was once again clueless, failing the last two questions on Kennedy's short but incisive examination.

 

[Syriusly]

Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency?

Donald trump is testing the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so ill-informed about the nature of his office, so openly mendacious, so self-destructive, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the courts, the press, Congress (including members of his own party), and even senior officials within his own administration. Trump is a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Andrew Jackson’s rage; Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; James Buchanan’s incompetence and spite; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s paranoia, insecurity, and indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s lack of self-control and reflexive dishonesty.

Wow....nothing you posted is remotely true or accurate.

LOL how very ironic coming from you.

 

[Political Junky]

Christian Bale Laments Trump's Presidency: a 'Genuine Tragedy' for America

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Christian Bale Laments Trump's Presidency: a 'Genuine Tragedy' for America

Bale seems like a typical left wing twit.
Obama divide Americans by race religion, region and class for 8 years.
Hollywood and the Press work 24/7 to raise racial tensions.
The Democratic Party is full of hate groups and racist cretins.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

He didn't fail to answer, he answered all the questions and some he did not know the answers to.

Barack, how many states are in the country you want to lead?

Barack: 57, but not including Alaska and Hawaii

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency?

Donald trump is testing the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so ill-informed about the nature of his office, so openly mendacious, so self-destructive, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the courts, the press, Congress (including members of his own party), and even senior officials within his own administration. Trump is a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Andrew Jackson’s rage; Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; James Buchanan’s incompetence and spite; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s paranoia, insecurity, and indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s lack of self-control and reflexive dishonesty.

You should start a thread with this.

Barack Hussein Obama tested the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so anti-American in office, so openly mendacious, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the separation of powers. Barack Hussein Obama is like a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; Jimmy Carter’s incompetence; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s reflexive dishonesty. Barack Hussein Obama's abuse of power with the FBI, NSA, IRS and DOJ was the worst that Americans have ever witnessed.

 

[Esmeralda]

Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency?

Donald trump is testing the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so ill-informed about the nature of his office, so openly mendacious, so self-destructive, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the courts, the press, Congress (including members of his own party), and even senior officials within his own administration. Trump is a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Andrew Jackson’s rage; Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; James Buchanan’s incompetence and spite; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s paranoia, insecurity, and indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s lack of self-control and reflexive dishonesty.

You should start a thread with this.

Barack Hussein Obama tested the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so anti-American in office, so openly mendacious, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the separation of powers. Barack Hussein Obama is like a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; Jimmy Carter’s incompetence; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s reflexive dishonesty. Barack Hussein Obama's abuse of power with the FBI, NSA, IRS and DOJ was the worst that Americans have ever witnessed.

What utter and complete BS. You need to pull your head out of the mire that is rightwing talking points. PATHETIC. Barack Obama has been rated by a broad range of historians as the 12th best president we have ever had; it is the best ranking for any president since Reagan.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency?

Donald trump is testing the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so ill-informed about the nature of his office, so openly mendacious, so self-destructive, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the courts, the press, Congress (including members of his own party), and even senior officials within his own administration. Trump is a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Andrew Jackson’s rage; Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; James Buchanan’s incompetence and spite; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s paranoia, insecurity, and indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s lack of self-control and reflexive dishonesty.

You should start a thread with this.

Barack Hussein Obama tested the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so anti-American in office, so openly mendacious, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the separation of powers. Barack Hussein Obama is like a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; Jimmy Carter’s incompetence; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s reflexive dishonesty. Barack Hussein Obama's abuse of power with the FBI, NSA, IRS and DOJ was the worst that Americans have ever witnessed.

What utter and complete BS. You need to pull your head out of the mire that is rightwing talking points. PATHETIC. Barack Obama has been rated by a broad range of historians as the 12th best president we have ever had; it is the best ranking for any president since Reagan.

Well of course they can find left wing wacko Historians that adore left wing wacko Obama lol
Their rating is meaningless

 

[Political Junky]

Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency?

Donald trump is testing the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so ill-informed about the nature of his office, so openly mendacious, so self-destructive, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the courts, the press, Congress (including members of his own party), and even senior officials within his own administration. Trump is a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Andrew Jackson’s rage; Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; James Buchanan’s incompetence and spite; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s paranoia, insecurity, and indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s lack of self-control and reflexive dishonesty.

You should start a thread with this.

Barack Hussein Obama tested the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so anti-American in office, so openly mendacious, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the separation of powers. Barack Hussein Obama is like a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; Jimmy Carter’s incompetence; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s reflexive dishonesty. Barack Hussein Obama's abuse of power with the FBI, NSA, IRS and DOJ was the worst that Americans have ever witnessed.

What utter and complete BS. You need to pull your head out of the mire that is rightwing talking points. PATHETIC. Barack Obama has been rated by a broad range of historians as the 12th best president we have ever had; it is the best ranking for any president since Reagan.

Trump is in the top 45.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency?

Donald trump is testing the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so ill-informed about the nature of his office, so openly mendacious, so self-destructive, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the courts, the press, Congress (including members of his own party), and even senior officials within his own administration. Trump is a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Andrew Jackson’s rage; Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; James Buchanan’s incompetence and spite; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s paranoia, insecurity, and indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s lack of self-control and reflexive dishonesty.

You should start a thread with this.

Barack Hussein Obama tested the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so anti-American in office, so openly mendacious, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the separation of powers. Barack Hussein Obama is like a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; Jimmy Carter’s incompetence; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s reflexive dishonesty. Barack Hussein Obama's abuse of power with the FBI, NSA, IRS and DOJ was the worst that Americans have ever witnessed.

What utter and complete BS. You need to pull your head out of the mire that is rightwing talking points. PATHETIC. Barack Obama has been rated by a broad range of historians as the 12th best president we have ever had; it is the best ranking for any president since Reagan.

Trump is in the top 45.

Obama is in the bottom 45

 

[Esmeralda]

Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency?

Donald trump is testing the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so ill-informed about the nature of his office, so openly mendacious, so self-destructive, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the courts, the press, Congress (including members of his own party), and even senior officials within his own administration. Trump is a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Andrew Jackson’s rage; Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; James Buchanan’s incompetence and spite; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s paranoia, insecurity, and indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s lack of self-control and reflexive dishonesty.

You should start a thread with this.

Barack Hussein Obama tested the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so anti-American in office, so openly mendacious, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the separation of powers. Barack Hussein Obama is like a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; Jimmy Carter’s incompetence; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s reflexive dishonesty. Barack Hussein Obama's abuse of power with the FBI, NSA, IRS and DOJ was the worst that Americans have ever witnessed.

What utter and complete BS. You need to pull your head out of the mire that is rightwing talking points. PATHETIC. Barack Obama has been rated by a broad range of historians as the 12th best president we have ever had; it is the best ranking for any president since Reagan.

Well of course they can find left wing wacko Historians that adore left wing wacko Obama lol
Their rating is meaningless

That is just the perfect example of the idiocy of rightwing thinkers. It was a survey. The historians were not singled out for political affiliations. Idiot. Just a general survey of all historians.

 

[Esmeralda]

Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency?

Donald trump is testing the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so ill-informed about the nature of his office, so openly mendacious, so self-destructive, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the courts, the press, Congress (including members of his own party), and even senior officials within his own administration. Trump is a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Andrew Jackson’s rage; Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; James Buchanan’s incompetence and spite; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s paranoia, insecurity, and indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s lack of self-control and reflexive dishonesty.

You should start a thread with this.

Barack Hussein Obama tested the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so anti-American in office, so openly mendacious, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the separation of powers. Barack Hussein Obama is like a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; Jimmy Carter’s incompetence; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s reflexive dishonesty. Barack Hussein Obama's abuse of power with the FBI, NSA, IRS and DOJ was the worst that Americans have ever witnessed.

What utter and complete BS. You need to pull your head out of the mire that is rightwing talking points. PATHETIC. Barack Obama has been rated by a broad range of historians as the 12th best president we have ever had; it is the best ranking for any president since Reagan.

Trump is in the top 45.

Obama is in the bottom 45

Absolute, total BS. Where did you get this stat? Mine is from C-SPAN.

 

[Esmeralda]

Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency?

Donald trump is testing the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so ill-informed about the nature of his office, so openly mendacious, so self-destructive, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the courts, the press, Congress (including members of his own party), and even senior officials within his own administration. Trump is a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Andrew Jackson’s rage; Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; James Buchanan’s incompetence and spite; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s paranoia, insecurity, and indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s lack of self-control and reflexive dishonesty.

You should start a thread with this.

Barack Hussein Obama tested the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so anti-American in office, so openly mendacious, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the separation of powers. Barack Hussein Obama is like a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; Jimmy Carter’s incompetence; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s reflexive dishonesty. Barack Hussein Obama's abuse of power with the FBI, NSA, IRS and DOJ was the worst that Americans have ever witnessed.

What utter and complete BS. You need to pull your head out of the mire that is rightwing talking points. PATHETIC. Barack Obama has been rated by a broad range of historians as the 12th best president we have ever had; it is the best ranking for any president since Reagan.

Trump is in the top 45.

Barack Obama Ranked 12th Best U.S. President Ever in Major Survey of Historians

Survey: Historians rank Obama 12th best president

 

[Esmeralda]

Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency?

Donald trump is testing the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so ill-informed about the nature of his office, so openly mendacious, so self-destructive, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the courts, the press, Congress (including members of his own party), and even senior officials within his own administration. Trump is a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Andrew Jackson’s rage; Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; James Buchanan’s incompetence and spite; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s paranoia, insecurity, and indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s lack of self-control and reflexive dishonesty.

You should start a thread with this.

Barack Hussein Obama tested the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so anti-American in office, so openly mendacious, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the separation of powers. Barack Hussein Obama is like a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; Jimmy Carter’s incompetence; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s reflexive dishonesty. Barack Hussein Obama's abuse of power with the FBI, NSA, IRS and DOJ was the worst that Americans have ever witnessed.

What utter and complete BS. You need to pull your head out of the mire that is rightwing talking points. PATHETIC. Barack Obama has been rated by a broad range of historians as the 12th best president we have ever had; it is the best ranking for any president since Reagan.

Trump is in the top 45.

Obama is in the bottom 45

You are just as bad as Trump: you just lie for the sake of lying.