but yet in 2013 they gave everything obama wanted but the courts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination
Beginning in 2010 (at the latest) the GOP made it clear there would be no compromise with Obama.
http://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311
Sorry. "Bill" was the wrong word choice.
I am in favor of Congress killing the Iran deal. Heavy sanctions should be levied against Iran and their bank accounts should be frozen. However, I don't have much faith in the Republican Congress. at this point, doing the right thing. The Democrats can always be counted on to vote against the best interest of The United States and Republicans have been acting like Democrats, of late. I would support the President if he decided to destroy Iran's nuclear site. It's just one more danger, Obama created and Trump will probably have to clean up the mess.
That would be a violation of a UNSC Resolution the US backed that embodied the Iran Sanctions Nuclear Agreement Review Act. The IAA has certified 8 times that Iran is in compliance with that Act, and that has been confirmed by Generals Mattis and Dunford and Secretary Tillerson, as well.
The UN and the IAA cannot be trusted to give an honest appraisal of whether or not Iran is complying with the terms of the agreement. The two Generals and Tillerson are concerned that, if we scrap the agreement, The NoKos might not negotiate their nuclear proliferation agenda. They might not believe that the U.S. would keep any agreement made with the Trump government. I don't know if that's true or not. I'm not going to call the Generals and Tillerson, pussies. Trump appointed them for their experience and knowledge of foreign policy. He probably should defer to their expertise.
Obama gave them $150 Billion to wage terrorism with. That one act should put him in prison.
That sounds reasonable, to me. North Korea would have little reason to negotiate an end to the Korean War if they thought Trump or his successor would simply change the terms after signing the agreement. I worry more about reports of how Trump's generals and other advisers have to constantly remind the president there is no military solution to North Korea.
But there is a military solution to NoKo...blow the bastards up. should we wait until missiles are falling on (fruits and nuts) in California?That sounds reasonable, to me. North Korea would have little reason to negotiate an end to the Korean War if they thought Trump or his successor would simply change the terms after signing the agreement. I worry more about reports of how Trump's generals and other advisers have to constantly remind the president there is no military solution to North Korea.
Other than sending a drone to kill a terrorist leader, every so often, I can't think of anything positive, or not detrimental to Americans, that Obama did while in office.
It can rub people the wrong way, but when people care more about taking crude bad jokes seriously and literally rather than policy and worldwide issues... well, it's all about emotion and not about ideas.
I won't mention the queers and steers.
I've offered a plausible opinion about why Bush's polls fell. But the point wasn't to establish that reason -- maybe the fact he led our nation into a catastrophic war and the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression had no impact on his popularity. It's conceivable. The point, though, was to establish that the reason he wound up hated by the large majority of Americans wasn't because he was a Republican. He was a Republican in early 2000, with opinion polls as high as 63%, and he was a Republican after 9/11 with the highest approval ratings in history. People demonstrated their ability to take the fact he was a Republican in their stride and yet still approve of him. So, to explain how he eventually wound up with approval as low as 25%, at a time when even only 57% of REPUBLICANS liked him, and practically nobody else did, it takes more than just the fact that he was a Republican.
If it had been Clinton, it would have been reported far more negatively, since he wouldn't have had the liberals in the press running interference for him. As happened with LBJ, when Vietnam got ugly, the liberals in the media would have turned on Clinton, along with the centrists and conservatives, and, like LBJ, he'd have been forced to give up the hope of even running for a second term. But since it was a Republican president, he could at least count on continued devotion from the Rupert Murdoch empire and the evangelical pulpits, letting him cling to enough support for a second term in the face of disastrous failure.
Clinton's approval ratings weren't bullet proof. Early on, when the people were mostly judging him by the tirelessly negative reporting in the mainstream press, rather than by Clinton's actual results (which still weren't clear), he was very unpopular. Clinton's approval plunged as low as 37% in his first few months in office. Especially after their cronies in the Travel Office were fired for corruption, the mainstream press absolutely hated Clinton, and took every opportunity to belittle him:
Bill Clinton could have butt-humped a ten-year-old boy in Times Square and Liberals would still have supported him and excused his crimes against women and his do-nothing presidency. You still slobber over the POS today.I've offered a plausible opinion about why Bush's polls fell. But the point wasn't to establish that reason -- maybe the fact he led our nation into a catastrophic war and the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression had no impact on his popularity. It's conceivable. The point, though, was to establish that the reason he wound up hated by the large majority of Americans wasn't because he was a Republican. He was a Republican in early 2000, with opinion polls as high as 63%, and he was a Republican after 9/11 with the highest approval ratings in history. People demonstrated their ability to take the fact he was a Republican in their stride and yet still approve of him. So, to explain how he eventually wound up with approval as low as 25%, at a time when even only 57% of REPUBLICANS liked him, and practically nobody else did, it takes more than just the fact that he was a Republican.
If it had been Clinton, it would have been reported far more negatively, since he wouldn't have had the liberals in the press running interference for him. As happened with LBJ, when Vietnam got ugly, the liberals in the media would have turned on Clinton, along with the centrists and conservatives, and, like LBJ, he'd have been forced to give up the hope of even running for a second term. But since it was a Republican president, he could at least count on continued devotion from the Rupert Murdoch empire and the evangelical pulpits, letting him cling to enough support for a second term in the face of disastrous failure.
Clinton's approval ratings weren't bullet proof. Early on, when the people were mostly judging him by the tirelessly negative reporting in the mainstream press, rather than by Clinton's actual results (which still weren't clear), he was very unpopular. Clinton's approval plunged as low as 37% in his first few months in office. Especially after their cronies in the Travel Office were fired for corruption, the mainstream press absolutely hated Clinton, and took every opportunity to belittle him:
Hell, Time hated Clinton so much they were still at it after he left office:
By comparison, at the same point in the Bush administration, the mainstream press was taking time to document the alleged misbehavior of outgoing Clinton staffers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/04/us/bush-spokesman-catalogs-pranks-attributed-to-clinton-aides.html
But as much as the corporate press hated Clinton, they couldn't erase his results. Although they could hammer him down to Trump-like approval ratings in his first few months, gradually those ratings rose and rose, until he was the most popular outgoing president in the history of approval polling. Bush followed the opposite trajectory, as befits a miserable failure (amusingly, Bush's name came up first for so long when you Googled "miserable failure" that Google had to manually alter their algorithm to push him down the results list).
The press can have an impact on how a president is perceived, especially in his first year. It can savage him constantly, as with Clinton, driving his ratings into the 30s. Or it can build him up by essentially declaring criticism off limits, as it did with Bush after 9/11, pushing him up into the 90s. But eventually the people start to tune out the press and look at the actual results. At that point, the good presidents tend to rise and the bad ones tend to fall.
The liberals were tough on Clinton and remain so to this day. I realize that you live within an enclosed media bubble consisting of Fox News and similar "right wing propaganda for dummies" outlets. But step outside that bubble and read what actual liberal outlets had to say about Clinton. Clinton represented a vision that the liberals hated: a triangulating approach to politics that coopted Republican ideas and toned down liberalism. The liberals thought that DLC approach would fail. They weren't completely happy when it succeeded. But even they had to recognize good results when they happened. Even if you saw Bill Clinton as a center-right Wall Street tool and a wolf in sheep's clothing, it's hard to deny that on his watch poverty plunged, middle class incomes soared, and things became markedly better for the groups the liberals care about. So, Clinton won a grudging respect from them.
You're so full of shit. You clowns worship the bag of pus. Look at all the morons who were crying, screeching, screaming, losing what was left of their tiny minds, tearing their clothes, pouring ashes on their heads and seeking psychiatric help and safe spaces to cope with her loss. Truth be known, and we'll never know the truth about you because you are incapable of telling the truth but I have no doubt that you were holed up in your safe space, in your home in a gated community, in Massaf**king chusetts, crying and wringing your hands, calling out to whatever was your god du jour...why...why...oh why, how can I go back to PJ and face all those bad men and women there, who are going to laugh at me and make me feel just awful?
I did ask some of your butt-buddies how they feel about Clinton:
Ah.
The good news is, it's probably mostly crippling political bias, and not purely intellectual deficiency.
There are at least two posters here who are to the left of me — Eat The Rich and George. Why don’t you test your little theory and ask them what they think of Clinton?
