Quit picking on Obama……


Walter
+1 / -1
#7861
Living in Never Land.
Once Again Obama Claims 'I Didn't Have Scandals'
https://pjmedia.com/trending/once-ag...have-scandals/
 
Walter
+2 / -1
#7862
D’oh!
Shaun King, Linda Sarsour, Others Try To Hammer Trump On Immigration But Hit Obama Instead
Liberals Tweet Immigration Pic That Happened | The Daily Caller
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1 / -1
#7863
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Once Again Obama Claims 'I Didn't Have Scandals'
https://pjmedia.com/trending/once-ag...have-scandals/


certainly not compared to Dump:


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ncy/603852002/

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...t-about-215420



and those sex scandals are still pending!
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+2
#7864
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

certainly not compared to Dump:


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ncy/603852002/

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...t-about-215420



and those sex scandals are still pending!

Wow , that is terrible.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+2
#7865
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

certainly not compared to Dump:


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ncy/603852002/

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...t-about-215420



and those sex scandals are still pending!

Sex scandals? You mean slick Willy is still getting blown? If he is good for him.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+2
#7866
Obama Says ‘I Didn’t Have Scandals.’ So What Are All These?

At a Las Vegas tech conference last week, former president Barack Obama told an audience that his presidency had been scandal-free. “I didn't have scandals, which seems like it shouldn't be something you brag about,” Obama joked, according to Newsweek. We hear this talking point quite often from Democrats.
Now, perhaps the president didn’t experience the fallout from a scandal, which is very different from never having been involved in one. For this confusion, Obama can thank the political media.
Why does it matter now? For one thing, historical revisionism shouldn’t go unchallenged. Democrats are running to retake power, and many of them were participants or accomplices in numerous corrosive scandals that have been airbrushed.
The other reason, of course, is that when we start to juxtapose the mythically idyllic Obama presidency with the tumultuous reign of Trump, we’re reminded that many journalists largely abdicated their responsibilities for eight years -- which has a lot to do with the situation we find ourselves in today.
It’s not about Obama's brazen lying about Obamacare or even recurrent abuse of power. I’m talking about supposed non-scandals like “Operation Fast and Furious,” a program devised by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) that put around 2,000 weapons into the hands of narco-traffickers (and an Islamic terrorist), leading to the murder of hundreds of Mexicans and at least one American, border agent Brian Terry.
The body count could have been higher when a homegrown extremist who, with another assailant, attempted to murder the audience at a “Draw Muhammad” contest in Garland, Texas with one of the Fast and Furious weapons. An off-duty police officer killed both of the attackers.
Despite the incompetence, absurdity, recklessness, and fatalities of the program, the entire affair never really received scandal-like attention. No one lost his job. There will almost certainly be a tweet from Trump this week that political media will afford more attention than a story in which an American border agent was murdered with the gun Obama's ATF provided.
Not even when the administration refused to cooperate with congressional investigators was it handled like a scandal. Not even when a federal judge rejected Obama’s assertion of executive privilege in efforts to deny Congress files relating to the gun-walking operation was it treated as a scandal. Not even when we learned that Obama attorney general Eric Holder misled Congress about when he was made aware of the program did it rise to the importance of a Trump tweet. Holder became the first sitting attorney general in American history to be held in contempt of Congress -- a vote that included 17 Democrats -- and Obama still never paid a political price.
As it was, the Obama administration persistently ignored courts and oversight, breaking norms because it was allowed to do so. The president was articulate, friendly, and progressive. He might have executed an American citizen without a trial (not a scandal!), but his contempt for the process could be forgiven.
It’s why Obama could secretly send planes filled with cash to pay a ransom to a terror state (using money earmarked for terror victims) and most reporters and analysts would regurgitate the justification they heard in the echo chamber. One Politico reporter might drop a 14,000-word heavily sourced investigative piece (two officials involved in the program went on the record) detailing how the Obama administration undermined law enforcement efforts to shut down an international drug-trafficking ring run by the terror group Hezbollah operating in the United States, and most major news organizations never even mentioned the piece.
When they did, it was usually to give space to former Obama officials to smear the reporter.
It needn’t be said, but if the names were changed to Trump and Russia, the president would be accused of sedition. But by any conceivable journalistic standard, it’s a scandal that should have triggered widespread coverage. So when we see mass indignation over every single hyperbolic statement from the current president, it’s a bit difficult to buy the outrage.
An Obama official famously bragged to The New York Times Magazine that he could rely on the ignorance, inexperience, and partisan dispositions of reporters to convey administration talking points to help push through preferred policy. Rather than being hurt or embarrassed by this kind of accusation of unprofessionalism, many reporters are more reliant on the same people than ever before.
Yet many professionals who supposedly deplore the authoritarian nature of an administration that doesn’t answer CNN’s questions were generally quiet when Obama spied on reporters. The Obama DOJ spied on the Associated Press in an attempt to crack down on internal leaks. The DOJ tapped around 20 different phone lines—including cell phone and home lines—that snared at least 100 staffers who worked for the outlet. The Justice Department spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen in 2010, collecting his telephone records, looking at his personal emails and tracking his movements.
Color me skeptical, but somehow I doubt similar Trump efforts would be framed as a “rare peek into a Justice Department leak probe,” as if we were pulling the curtains back on a fashion show. It would be, rightly, depicted as an assault on democracy.
Then again, spying was also never really given the scandal treatment during the Obama years. As Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan became aware of an operation of illegal spying of a legislative branch staffer over torture files and misled the media about it. Did the president know? Shrug. The story hardly made a dent. Likewise, Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper, admitted he misled Congress about spying on American citizens. No scandal.
Today both these people are on TV chumming around with serious journalists who allow them to continue to make reckless, unsubstantiated political statements all the time. It isn’t Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press" who asks Clapper tough questions, it’s Meghan McCain on "The View."
There was unprecedented politicization of the government under Obama -- most of it, I imagine, excused for being part of a good cause. The NLRB. The Justice Department. The IRS. The Office of Special Counsel, which reviews whistleblower allegations, found that IRS employees urged callers to vote for Obama, wore pro-Obama swag, and campaigned for Democrats in conversations with taxpayers -- all of it illegal.
Advertisement

But far more seriously, IRS leadership, specifically Lois Lerner, aggressively targeted conservative groups before elections. The IRS admitted as much in an apology letter. Lerner was held in contempt by Congress for refusing to comply with investigators' demands. She never answered questions for this genuine attack on democracy.
What difference does it make, right? While the extent of the incompetence and negligence during the Benghazi terror attack on September 11, 2012 is still unknown, what we do know is that Obama and a number of high-ranking officials in his administration lied about what happened for partisan reasons. Susan Rice went on a number of national television shows and claimed that Benghazi was a “spontaneous reaction” to “hateful and offensive video,” even when she knew it was a sophisticated and pre-planned terror attack. (Rice is now on the Netflix board, and Obama is a very rich man. At some point you've made enough money, but that time is not yet.)
Although they knew it was a complex terror attack, Obama and Hillary Clinton cut television ads to placate radicals in Islamic nations by repeating the claim that a video perpetuated the attack, and apologizing for American free speech -- a scandal in itself.
Worse, however, the administration detained the man who produced the offensively amateurish “Innocence of Muslims,” and initially charged him with lying about his role in the production of the video. This was a blatant attack on free expression. Yet most of the mainstream press continued to take the administration’s word for it and report that the video was the cause of the “protests.”
Democrats in general just kept pretending that every accusation was merely a partisan, racist plot to undermine the president. Whether it was bypassing process and oversight to fund cronyistic green projects that enriched political and ideological allies with tax dollars, or the Secret Service’s embarrassing debauchery or Hillary Clinton's attempts to circumvent transparency or, perhaps the most immoral, the Veterans Affairs' negligence regarding veterans, they would never admit they faced a scandal.
This double standard in coverage makes today’s often sanctimonious reactions to Trump a bit difficult to take. Many reporters will snarkily point out that most of the stories critics latch onto have been reported on or broken by mainstream journalists. It’s true. There are plenty of good journalists out there. But it’s the intensity of the coverage and the framing of the events that is evidence of ideologically motivated coverage. And every time Obama or his allies claim that they were scandal-free, millions of Americans are reminded of the obsequiousness of most media coverage.
 
Walter
+1
#7867
Tip of the iceberg.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#7868
Yes, but I don't think we will ever hear the whole story
 
Walter
+1
#7869
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Yes, but I don't think we will ever hear the whole story

Cuz he’s black and to tell the truth about him would be racist.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+2
#7870
Most of the swamp people that he created are leading the resist Trump movement, a lot of draining to do to get to the truth
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#7871
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Obama Says ‘I Didn’t Have Scandals.’ So What Are All These?

At a Las Vegas tech conference last week, former president Barack Obama told an audience that his presidency had been scandal-free. “I didn't have scandals, which seems like it shouldn't be something you brag about,” Obama joked, according to Newsweek. We hear this talking point quite often from Democrats.
Now, perhaps the president didn’t experience the fallout from a scandal, which is very different from never having been involved in one. For this confusion, Obama can thank the political media.
Why does it matter now? For one thing, historical revisionism shouldn’t go unchallenged. Democrats are running to retake power, and many of them were participants or accomplices in numerous corrosive scandals that have been airbrushed.

I suppose a lot of stuff the media reports is true but it's hard to say which stuff, a lot of the time. I wouldn't swear an oath based on ANY of it.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#7872
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave;

Sex scandals? You mean slick Willy is still getting blown? If he is good for him.



Amazing how the right wingers are always bringing up Slick & Obama, neither of whom is in office.

Mebbe we need a 'quit picking on Bush' thread.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#7873
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

Amazing how the right wingers are always bringing up Slick & Obama, neither of whom is in office.

Mebbe we need a 'quit picking on Bush' thread.

That would be nuclear .
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
-1
#7874
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

Amazing how the right wingers are always bringing up Slick & Obama, neither of whom is in office.

Mebbe we need a 'quit picking on Bush' thread.




Deflection. Trump buggers up so often that the right wingers are desperate for an excuse. The fact that they continually bring up issues that are not relevant shows just how desperate they are.
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#7875
Any Trump indictments for russian collusion yet bright boy?


Darn spies in the white house...too bad you guys can't read tweets, it would have saved you so much illegal trouble spying on an elected president with the goal of committing a communist coup.

...and they still bring up clinton, eh?...because racist rapists and traitors who deal dope.



Miss me yet? hayunk hayunk!

All their enablers and accomplices deserve prison too...if they live that long.

Last edited by Danbones; May 31st, 2018 at 02:16 AM..
 
Walter
-1
#7876
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

Amazing how the right wingers are always bringing up Slick & Obama, neither of whom is in office.

Mebbe we need a 'quit picking on Bush' thread.

Amazing BHO always kept bringing up Bush whenever BHO's policies failed.

Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Trump buggers up so often

Such as?
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#7877
He didn't off the opposition like Hitlary/obama did to Gaddafi, or Bush did to Saddam...?
(for Israel)

it ain't like she doesn't present a similar (see above) target.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#7878
They should stop trying to get themselves into the news to be relevant and maybe people would stop brining them up

How Trump’s Election Shook Obama: ‘What if We Were Wrong?’

WASHINGTON — Riding in a motorcade in Lima, Peru, shortly after the 2016 election, President Barack Obama was struggling to understand Donald J. Trump’s victory.
“What if we were wrong?” he asked aides riding with him in the armored presidential limousine.
He had read a column asserting that liberals had forgotten how important identity was to people and had promoted an empty cosmopolitan globalism that made many feel left behind. “Maybe we pushed too far,” Mr. Obama said. “Maybe people just want to fall back into their tribe.”
Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter
His aides reassured him that he still would have won had he been able to run for another term and that the next generation had more in common with him than with Mr. Trump. Mr. Obama, the first black man elected president, did not seem convinced. “Sometimes I wonder whether I was 10 or 20 years too early,” he said.
In the weeks after Mr. Trump’s election, Mr. Obama went through multiple emotional stages, according to a new book by his longtime adviser Benjamin J. Rhodes. At times, the departing president took the long view, at other points, he flashed anger. He called Mr. Trump a “cartoon” figure who cared more about his crowd sizes than any particular policy. And he expressed rare self-doubt, wondering whether he had misjudged his own influence on American history.
Set to be published next week by Random House, Mr. Rhodes’s memoir, “The World as It Is,” offers a peek into Mr. Obama’s tightly sealed inner sanctum from the perspective of one of the few people who saw him up close through all eight years of his presidency. Few moments shook Mr. Obama more than the decision by voters to replace him with a candidate who had questioned his very birth.
Mr. Rhodes served as Mr. Obama’s deputy national security adviser through some of the most consequential points of his presidency, including decisions to authorize the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, send more troops to Afghanistan, pull most troops out of Iraq, restore diplomatic relations with Cuba, seal a nuclear agreement with Iran, intervene militarily in Libya and refuse to intervene militarily in Syria.
But his book offers a new window, if only slightly cracked open, into the 44th president’s handling of Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election to help Mr. Trump get elected and the aftermath.
In handing over power to someone determined to tear down all he had accomplished, Mr. Obama alluded to “The Godfather” mafia movie: “I feel like Michael Corleone. I almost got out.”
Mr. Rhodes describes the reaction of foreign leaders. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan apologized for breaching protocol by meeting with Mr. Trump at Trump Tower in Manhattan after the election. Mr. Obama urged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada to take on a more vocal role defending the values they shared.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama that she felt more obliged to run for another term because of Mr. Trump’s election to defend the liberal international order. When they parted for the final time, Ms. Merkel had a single tear in her eye. “She’s all alone,” Mr. Obama noted.
And yet despite criticism even from former advisers to Mr. Obama, Mr. Rhodes offers little sense that the former president thought he could have done more to counter Russian involvement in the election. Mr. Obama had authorized a statement to be issued by intelligence agency leaders a month before the election warning of Russian interference, but was thwarted from doing more because Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, refused to go along with a bipartisan statement.
Mr. Rhodes called Mr. McConnell’s refusal “staggeringly partisan and unpatriotic.” But Mr. Obama, whose Supreme Court nomination had been blocked by Mr. McConnell for months, seemed less surprised.
“What else did you expect from McConnell?” he asked. “He won’t even give us a hearing on Merrick Garland.”
Still, in preparatory sessions before meetings with the news media before the election, aides pressed Mr. Obama to respond to criticism that he should speak out more about Russian meddling. “I talk about it every time I’m asked,” he responded. “What else are we going to do? We’ve warned folks.”
He noted that Mr. Trump was already claiming that the election would be manipulated if Hillary Clinton won. “If I speak out more, he’ll just say it’s rigged,” Mr. Obama said.
Mr. Rhodes writes that neither he nor Mr. Obama knew at that time that there was an F.B.I. investigation into contacts between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia, despite Mr. Trump’s recent unsubstantiated claims that the departing president placed a “spy” or multiple spies in his campaign.
Mr. Rhodes writes he did not learn about the F.B.I. investigation until after leaving office, and then from the news media. Mr. Obama did not impose sanctions on Russia in retaliation for the meddling before the election because he believed it might prompt Moscow into hacking into Election Day vote tabulations. Mr. Obama did impose sanctions after the election but Mr. Rhodes’s suggestion that the targets include President Vladimir V. Putin was rebuffed on the theory that such a move would go too far.
Mr. Obama and his team were confident that Mrs. Clinton would win and, like much of the country, were shocked when she did not. “I couldn’t shake the feeling that I should have seen it coming,” Mr. Rhodes writes. “Because when you distilled it, stripped out the racism and misogyny, we’d run against Hillary eight years ago with the same message Trump had used: She’s part of a corrupt establishment that can’t be trusted to bring change.”
On election night, Mr. Obama spoke by telephone with Cody Keenan, his chief speechwriter, and Mr. Rhodes to figure out what he should say. Mr. Rhodes asked if he should offer reassurance to allies. “No, I don’t think that I’m the one to tell them that,” he said.
The next day, Mr. Obama focused on cheering up his despondent staff. At one point, he sent a message to Mr. Rhodes saying, “There are more stars in the sky than grains of sand on the earth.”
But days later, Mr. Obama seemed more less sanguine. “I don’t know,” he told aides. “Maybe this is what people want. I’ve got the economy set up well for him. No facts. No consequences. They can just have a cartoon.”
He added that “we’re about to find out just how resilient our institutions are, at home and around the world.”
The day Mr. Obama hosted Mr. Trump at the White House after the election seemed surreal. Mr. Trump kept steering the conversation back to the size of his rallies, noting that he and Mr. Obama could draw big crowds, but Mrs. Clinton could not, Mr. Rhodes writes.
Afterward, Mr. Obama called a few aides to the Oval Office to ruminate on the encounter. “I’m trying to place him in American history,” he said.
“He peddles” bull, Mr. Rhodes answered. “That character has always been part of the American story. You can see it right back to some of the characters in Huckleberry Finn.”
“Maybe,” Mr. Obama answered, “that’s the best we can hope for.”
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1 / -1
#7879
Quote:

Any Trump indictments for russian collusion yet bright boy?


As for the Mueller investigations, I believe there have been several indictments about a half dozen convictions.

But I'm betting Dump will grant a pardon to all those right wing convicts.

Quote:

They should stop trying to get themselves into the news to be relevant and maybe people would stop brining them up


Bush has spoken up even more about Trump than Obama has. But I don't see anyone criticizing here. Wonder why ...

Quote:

Amazing BHO always kept bringing up Bush whenever BHO's policies failed.


Your hero Dump is the one who pretended that he ''inherited a mess'' which is total bullsh/t.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#7880
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post


Such as?


That's too easy. Why don't you show me a Trump policy that has actually improved the lives of his supporters?
 
Walter
-1
#7881
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

That's too easy. Why don't you show me a Trump policy that has actually improved the lives of his supporters?

Not so easy, eh? MAGA
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#7882
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

As for the Mueller investigations, I believe there have been several indictments about a half dozen convictions.

But I'm betting Dump will grant a pardon to all those right wing convicts.




Bush has spoken up even more about Trump than Obama has. But I don't see anyone criticizing here. Wonder why ...




Your hero Dump is the one who pretended that he ''inherited a mess'' which is total bullsh/t.

How many of those right wing convicts were convicted with colluding with the Russians ?

Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

That's too easy. Why don't you show me a Trump policy that has actually improved the lives of his supporters?

Tax cuts .
 
Walter
-2
#7883
Report: Obama White House Tried to Intrude on FBI's Russia Investigation
https://pjmedia.com/trending/report-...investigation/
Scandal free, just ask BHO.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#7884
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Not so easy, eh? MAGA




I'm sorry, is that actually your feeble attempt to answer my challenge?
 
Walter
+1 / -2
#7885
The crying and whining just won’t stop, delicious. (Michelle always said this about BHO)

Obama was right: He came too early
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.fc460efc68f3
 
Walter
-2
#7886
Treasonous.
The law is no obstacle.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/f...the-ayatollah/
 
Walter
+1 / -1
#7887
BHO’s tyrannical rule.

The IG Report and the Legacy of Obama
https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-ig-...gacy-of-obama/
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#7888
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

BHO’s tyrannical rule.

The IG Report and the Legacy of Obama
https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-ig-...gacy-of-obama/




So what you are saying is that the US has had six bad presidents in a row?
 
Walter
-1
#7889
The Media Insulate Obama From Scandal
https://townhall.com/columnists/bren...andal-n2492432
 
Walter
-1
#7890
New poll ranks Obama as the worst president since World War II
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ld_war_ii.html
 

Similar Threads

11
Gorilla Wasn't Picking A Fight
by mt_pockets1000 | Jun 20th, 2009
14
Picking Fights
by Jersay | Jun 22nd, 2006