Lay the blame on Hussien Obama

Roudy

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
51,135
Reaction score
9,512
Points
2,030
This was a total rejection of the Hussien Obama presidency. And Hillary was stupid enough to embrace him.
 

Brain357

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
36,271
Reaction score
3,819
Points
1,130

Fueri

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
4,765
Reaction score
1,927
Points
400
This was a total rejection of the Hussien Obama presidency. And Hillary was stupid enough to embrace him.

Yeah, she embraced him when his popularity rose in the polls, after slicing his ass up in '08 and prior to her official campaign launch, when his numbers were in the tank while ISIS was spreading rapidly.

Obama and demagoguery definitely have a place in this however. Obamacare, 'with you or without you', 'elections have consequences' and on and on and on.

His hubris and disregard for anyone that disagreed with his agenda spread to the rest of the left and they ignored the fact that a huge number of Americans did not agree with his/their agenda.

They thought they had the numbers to steamroll those people yet again and marginalize them permanently in this country and were dancing in glee at the prospect of doing exactly that, breaking any and all rules as they thought appropriate, safe in their comfy nests of rectitude and self-righteousness.

That miscalculation has come home to bite them squarely in the ass. Part of me wants to see those people's heads shoved in toilets for the next 4 years, as I think some of those fucking assholes deserve it in spades, but the larger part says we need to learn from their mistakes, realize we are a deeply divided nation and figure out a way to make this country actually work. Unfortunately, I doubt swirlies will help that along....
 

Rocko

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
18,619
Reaction score
5,329
Points
280
Location
NY
This was a total rejection of the Hussien Obama presidency. And Hillary was stupid enough to embrace him.
Yep, just said as much in another thread.
 

Bleipriester

Freedom!
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
27,403
Reaction score
2,193
Points
275
Location
Stupid-19
Now the way is free for the US to join the real war on terror.
Like Bush?
No! During Bush´s "war on terror" Al-Qaeda groups grew to armies capable of existentially threatening nations. The war on Iraq in 2003 was the starting point for al-Qaeda to settle down in the Middle East.
So what is it you want then if not war?
Don´t get me wrong. The US could join the war on terror in Syria. Even if Trump focuses only on ISIS, the results will be the same on the other frontiers. First of all, the US could stop support for what they call "moderate opposition" which doesn´t exist. Heck, who cares if the child beheaders call themselves al-Zinki or ISIS? Then Trump can bomb ISIS. But he also can bomb Nusra, Zinki and co. And as a new element of foreign policy, Trump can do it in accord with international law, massively fighting terrorists and boosting US reputation.
 

Bruce_T_Laney

Platinum Member
Joined
May 27, 2014
Messages
35,236
Reaction score
6,365
Points
1,140
Location
Hell
This was a total rejection of the Hussien Obama presidency. And Hillary was stupid enough to embrace him.
No... She was rejected because of her past and the fact she was the worst Democratic candidate in a long ass time...

President Obama was just a bonus because his voters did not swing to her...
 

Nia88

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
3,714
Reaction score
684
Points
195
Now the way is free for the US to join the real war on terror.
Yup, more war. That's what America needs, to start more wars where we have to spend more money and soldiers lose their lives.
 

Brain357

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
36,271
Reaction score
3,819
Points
1,130
Now the way is free for the US to join the real war on terror.
Like Bush?
No! During Bush´s "war on terror" Al-Qaeda groups grew to armies capable of existentially threatening nations. The war on Iraq in 2003 was the starting point for al-Qaeda to settle down in the Middle East.
So what is it you want then if not war?
Don´t get me wrong. The US could join the war on terror in Syria. Even if Trump focuses only on ISIS, the results will be the same on the other frontiers. First of all, the US could stop support for what they call "moderate opposition" which doesn´t exist. Heck, who cares if the child beheaders call themselves al-Zinki or ISIS? Then Trump can bomb ISIS. But he also can bomb Nusra, Zinki and co. And as a new element of foreign policy, Trump can do it in accord with international law, massively fighting terrorists and boosting US reputation.
I don't really like arming anyone we don't know so I don't disagree there. But isn't Russia already bombing them? Will us spending $ and possibly lives really help? Who does Israel want to win over there?
 
OP
Roudy

Roudy

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
51,135
Reaction score
9,512
Points
2,030
This was a total rejection of the Hussien Obama presidency. And Hillary was stupid enough to embrace him.

Yeah, she embraced him when his popularity rose in the polls, after slicing his ass up in '08 and prior to her official campaign launch, when his numbers were in the tank while ISIS was spreading rapidly.

Obama and demagoguery definitely have a place in this however. Obamacare, 'with you or without you', 'elections have consequences' and on and on and on.

His hubris and disregard for anyone that disagreed with his agenda spread to the rest of the left and they ignored the fact that a huge number of Americans did not agree with his/their agenda.

They thought they had the numbers to steamroll those people yet again and marginalize them permanently in this country and were dancing in glee at the prospect of doing exactly that, breaking any and all rules as they thought appropriate, safe in their comfy nests of rectitude and self-righteousness.

That miscalculation has come home to bite them squarely in the ass. Part of me wants to see those people's heads shoved in toilets for the next 4 years, as I think some of those fucking assholes deserve it in spades, but the larger part says we need to learn from their mistakes, realize we are a deeply divided nation and figure out a way to make this country actually work. Unfortunately, I doubt swirlies will help that along....
I found it hard to believe that even after the polls were indicating that a record number of Americans - 70% were dissatisfied with where we are heading and we are on the wrong track, she basically announced that her agenda is a continuation of the Obama agenda. Huge miscalculation.
 

Bleipriester

Freedom!
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
27,403
Reaction score
2,193
Points
275
Location
Stupid-19
Now the way is free for the US to join the real war on terror.
Like Bush?
No! During Bush´s "war on terror" Al-Qaeda groups grew to armies capable of existentially threatening nations. The war on Iraq in 2003 was the starting point for al-Qaeda to settle down in the Middle East.
So what is it you want then if not war?
Don´t get me wrong. The US could join the war on terror in Syria. Even if Trump focuses only on ISIS, the results will be the same on the other frontiers. First of all, the US could stop support for what they call "moderate opposition" which doesn´t exist. Heck, who cares if the child beheaders call themselves al-Zinki or ISIS? Then Trump can bomb ISIS. But he also can bomb Nusra, Zinki and co. And as a new element of foreign policy, Trump can do it in accord with international law, massively fighting terrorists and boosting US reputation.
I don't really like arming anyone we don't know so I don't disagree there. But isn't Russia already bombing them? Will us spending $ and possibly lives really help? Who does Israel want to win over there?
Yeah, the Russians provide massive air support to Syrian forces. But how is that an argument? It is not a Russian mess they are cleaning up but an American. And by all standards, aren´t this groups a major threat to the local people and also to the people everywhere?
 

Brain357

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
36,271
Reaction score
3,819
Points
1,130
Like Bush?
No! During Bush´s "war on terror" Al-Qaeda groups grew to armies capable of existentially threatening nations. The war on Iraq in 2003 was the starting point for al-Qaeda to settle down in the Middle East.
So what is it you want then if not war?
Don´t get me wrong. The US could join the war on terror in Syria. Even if Trump focuses only on ISIS, the results will be the same on the other frontiers. First of all, the US could stop support for what they call "moderate opposition" which doesn´t exist. Heck, who cares if the child beheaders call themselves al-Zinki or ISIS? Then Trump can bomb ISIS. But he also can bomb Nusra, Zinki and co. And as a new element of foreign policy, Trump can do it in accord with international law, massively fighting terrorists and boosting US reputation.
I don't really like arming anyone we don't know so I don't disagree there. But isn't Russia already bombing them? Will us spending $ and possibly lives really help? Who does Israel want to win over there?
Yeah, the Russians provide massive air support to Syrian forces. But how is that an argument? It is not a Russian mess they are cleaning up but an American. And by all standards, aren´t this groups a major threat to the local people and also to the people everywhere?
I believe all the bombing has also been quite a threat to the locals. I'm not sure more bombing will make things better.
 

Fueri

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
4,765
Reaction score
1,927
Points
400
This was a total rejection of the Hussien Obama presidency. And Hillary was stupid enough to embrace him.

Yeah, she embraced him when his popularity rose in the polls, after slicing his ass up in '08 and prior to her official campaign launch, when his numbers were in the tank while ISIS was spreading rapidly.

Obama and demagoguery definitely have a place in this however. Obamacare, 'with you or without you', 'elections have consequences' and on and on and on.

His hubris and disregard for anyone that disagreed with his agenda spread to the rest of the left and they ignored the fact that a huge number of Americans did not agree with his/their agenda.

They thought they had the numbers to steamroll those people yet again and marginalize them permanently in this country and were dancing in glee at the prospect of doing exactly that, breaking any and all rules as they thought appropriate, safe in their comfy nests of rectitude and self-righteousness.

That miscalculation has come home to bite them squarely in the ass. Part of me wants to see those people's heads shoved in toilets for the next 4 years, as I think some of those fucking assholes deserve it in spades, but the larger part says we need to learn from their mistakes, realize we are a deeply divided nation and figure out a way to make this country actually work. Unfortunately, I doubt swirlies will help that along....
I found it hard to believe that even after the polls were indicating that a record number of Americans - 70% were dissatisfied with where we are heading and we are on the wrong track, she basically announced that her agenda is a continuation of the Obama agenda. Huge miscalculation.

I did too, but she's such a whore that she eagerly jumped right into his arms when the polls told her to. If his approval numbers had been bad she'd have been kicking him squarely in the balls for the last 3 months.

Whore got exactly what she deserves, IMO.
 

Bleipriester

Freedom!
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
27,403
Reaction score
2,193
Points
275
Location
Stupid-19
No! During Bush´s "war on terror" Al-Qaeda groups grew to armies capable of existentially threatening nations. The war on Iraq in 2003 was the starting point for al-Qaeda to settle down in the Middle East.
So what is it you want then if not war?
Don´t get me wrong. The US could join the war on terror in Syria. Even if Trump focuses only on ISIS, the results will be the same on the other frontiers. First of all, the US could stop support for what they call "moderate opposition" which doesn´t exist. Heck, who cares if the child beheaders call themselves al-Zinki or ISIS? Then Trump can bomb ISIS. But he also can bomb Nusra, Zinki and co. And as a new element of foreign policy, Trump can do it in accord with international law, massively fighting terrorists and boosting US reputation.
I don't really like arming anyone we don't know so I don't disagree there. But isn't Russia already bombing them? Will us spending $ and possibly lives really help? Who does Israel want to win over there?
Yeah, the Russians provide massive air support to Syrian forces. But how is that an argument? It is not a Russian mess they are cleaning up but an American. And by all standards, aren´t this groups a major threat to the local people and also to the people everywhere?
I believe all the bombing has also been quite a threat to the locals. I'm not sure more bombing will make things better.
If you get into it and realize there are millions of refugees, you´d also realize there aren´t many civilians in the war zones which have been largely the same for years. There are exceptions like Aleppo but claims that Syria and Russia are bombing the civilians there are untrue. Since the army tightened the belt around eastern Aleppo, there have been no more air strikes.
ISIS, Nusra and co are very mobile forces and need to be bombed on their travels. This is where the US can certainly be a big help.
 

Brain357

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
36,271
Reaction score
3,819
Points
1,130
So what is it you want then if not war?
Don´t get me wrong. The US could join the war on terror in Syria. Even if Trump focuses only on ISIS, the results will be the same on the other frontiers. First of all, the US could stop support for what they call "moderate opposition" which doesn´t exist. Heck, who cares if the child beheaders call themselves al-Zinki or ISIS? Then Trump can bomb ISIS. But he also can bomb Nusra, Zinki and co. And as a new element of foreign policy, Trump can do it in accord with international law, massively fighting terrorists and boosting US reputation.
I don't really like arming anyone we don't know so I don't disagree there. But isn't Russia already bombing them? Will us spending $ and possibly lives really help? Who does Israel want to win over there?
Yeah, the Russians provide massive air support to Syrian forces. But how is that an argument? It is not a Russian mess they are cleaning up but an American. And by all standards, aren´t this groups a major threat to the local people and also to the people everywhere?
I believe all the bombing has also been quite a threat to the locals. I'm not sure more bombing will make things better.
If you get into it and realize there are millions of refugees, you´d also realize there aren´t many civilians in the war zones which have been largely the same for years. There are exceptions like Aleppo but claims that Syria and Russia are bombing the civilians there are untrue. Since the army tightens the belt around eastern Aleppo, there have been no more air strikes.
ISIS, Nusra and co are very mobile forces and need to be bombed on their travels. This is were the US can certainly be a big help.
We will see. Victories in this sort of thing are hard to come by. I think Russia expected it to be over by now. The people we abandon will immediately hate us. I'm with Ron Paul on foreign policy. The more we do the worse things seem to get.
 

Bleipriester

Freedom!
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
27,403
Reaction score
2,193
Points
275
Location
Stupid-19
Don´t get me wrong. The US could join the war on terror in Syria. Even if Trump focuses only on ISIS, the results will be the same on the other frontiers. First of all, the US could stop support for what they call "moderate opposition" which doesn´t exist. Heck, who cares if the child beheaders call themselves al-Zinki or ISIS? Then Trump can bomb ISIS. But he also can bomb Nusra, Zinki and co. And as a new element of foreign policy, Trump can do it in accord with international law, massively fighting terrorists and boosting US reputation.
I don't really like arming anyone we don't know so I don't disagree there. But isn't Russia already bombing them? Will us spending $ and possibly lives really help? Who does Israel want to win over there?
Yeah, the Russians provide massive air support to Syrian forces. But how is that an argument? It is not a Russian mess they are cleaning up but an American. And by all standards, aren´t this groups a major threat to the local people and also to the people everywhere?
I believe all the bombing has also been quite a threat to the locals. I'm not sure more bombing will make things better.
If you get into it and realize there are millions of refugees, you´d also realize there aren´t many civilians in the war zones which have been largely the same for years. There are exceptions like Aleppo but claims that Syria and Russia are bombing the civilians there are untrue. Since the army tightens the belt around eastern Aleppo, there have been no more air strikes.
ISIS, Nusra and co are very mobile forces and need to be bombed on their travels. This is were the US can certainly be a big help.
We will see. Victories in this sort of thing are hard to come by. I think Russia expected it to be over by now. The people we abandon will immediately hate us. I'm with Ron Paul on foreign policy. The more we do the worse things seem to get.
US allies need to calm down. Many threats, like the North Korean, aren´t there.
Please let me get into some details here. You don´t have to love North Korea but should know some facts.

Fact 1:
North Korea gave up on their nuclear program in a deal with the Obama administration in 2012. Obama didn´t deliver the promised food and North Korea relaunched its nuclear program.

Fact 2:
You cannot properly deal with someone you aren´t listening to. North Korea feels threatened by nuclear B-52 bombers flying into its airspace.
North Korea clearly stressed it would not be the first to use nuclear weapons.

I mean, help them to overcome the food crisis and things will improve. Keep on posing threats to them and things will get worse.

The first policy should be: No response to no threat.
 

Brynmr

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2016
Messages
5,491
Reaction score
872
Points
290
Now the way is free for the US to join the real war on terror.
Like Bush?
No! During Bush´s "war on terror" Al-Qaeda groups grew to armies capable of existentially threatening nations. The war on Iraq in 2003 was the starting point for al-Qaeda to settle down in the Middle East.
So what is it you want then if not war?
We're already at war - or haven't you noticed.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top