Active Now

Pet Eater
Discussion » Questions » Politics » President Obama has been warning Republicans for years about the dangers of their crazy right-wing rhetoric and obstructionism.

President Obama has been warning Republicans for years about the dangers of their crazy right-wing rhetoric and obstructionism.

Now they've gone and nominated Trump and are seeing their chickens come home to roost as he and his campaign are falling flat on their faces.

“For years,” President Obama said in Las Vegas, “Republican politicians and the far-right media outlets have pumped up all kinds of crazy stuff about me, about Hillary, about Harry [Reid]. They said I wasn’t born here. They said climate change is a hoax. They said that I was going to take everybody’s guns away.

There are a lot of politicians who knew better. There are a lot of senators who knew better. But they went along with these stories because they figured, you know what, this will help rile up the base, it will give us an excuse to obstruct what we’re trying to do, we won’t be able to appoint judges, we’ll gum up the works, we’ll create gridlock, it will give us a political advantage. So they just stood by and said nothing. And their base began to actually believe this crazy stuff.

So Donald Trump did not start this. He just did what he always did, which is slap his name on it, take credit for it, and promote it. That’s what he does. And so now when suddenly it’s not working, and people are saying, wow, this guy is kind of out of line, all of a sudden, these Republican politicians who were okay with all this crazy stuff up to a point, suddenly they’re all walking away. “Oh, this is too much.” … Well, what took you so long? What the heck?"

All of this will now cost some of them their jobs in an election they could have won, and it could cost the GOP control of the Senate and /or the House of Representatives. Let's hope that on the way out, they don't let the door hit 'em where God split 'em!

So what do Moi, Transquesta, and our other usual suspects have to say now? The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Posted - October 25, 2016

Responses


  • 5614
    Well, the Democrats got Bernie and Occupy. Will they simply go away? This post was edited by O-uknow at October 25, 2016 7:30 PM MDT
      October 25, 2016 7:29 PM MDT
    0

  • 5354
    "Bernie anf Occupy" is ZERO in comparison to Tea Partiers and "the Wall against Mexico"
      October 25, 2016 7:37 PM MDT
    1

  • 13277
    But Sanders didn't get nominated and then proceed to drag his party down with him.
      October 25, 2016 7:54 PM MDT
    1

  • 10052
    I don't think so. Bernie only joined the Democratic party (less than a year ago)in order to try to become president. That's why he didn't really have a shot, because the Dems in power weren't going to back an "outsider". But, he also knew that he had no chance at the presidency if he didn't join one of the two major parties. I am still a fan of his... he did his best to further the positive impact he's had on this country. I also completely understand why he endorsed Hillary, and I don't disagree with him. We all must do our part to prevent the orange monster from becoming POTUS. I only wish that Hillary would have had the good sense to sign Bernie on as VP, which would have guaranteed her victory.
      October 25, 2016 8:34 PM MDT
    1

  • 372
    I think it's equally possible that Bernie as VP would have guaranteed her LOSS. Troublesome succession (if necessary) due to 1) his age, and, 2) the perception of Bernie as a socialist. No matter how he softens the term, this country is not about to elect a socialist as a possible president.  
      October 25, 2016 9:55 PM MDT
    0

  • 10052
    I'd love to see some numbers on the average age of a Bernie supporter. Based solely on my own personal experience and knowledge, and the fact that his rallies at college campuses had lines of supporters outside the doors and down the street, I am pretty sure that those who supported him weren't concerned about his age.

    I hope, hope, hope that I live to see the day when a democratic socialist is elected president of this country. If the conspiracy theorists are wrong about the general public voting being nothing but a sham, I have little doubt that one will be. All but the very rich are concerned about things such as socialized medicine and income inequality, and it's going to take a hefty dose of socialism to rectify these issues.
      October 26, 2016 8:04 PM MDT
    1

  • 13277
    Sanders had no shot to be elected under any circumstances. Not enough folks outside of the northeast would have been willing to vote for a Jewish lefty from Brooklyn. Just as with racism, there's more anti-Semitism out there than you think. It even raises its ugly head right here on Answermug.

    And what's not to think so? What part of "he didn't get nominated" is incorrect? This post was edited by Stu Spelling Bee at October 25, 2016 10:06 PM MDT
      October 25, 2016 10:04 PM MDT
    0

  • 10052
    Yikes! Obviously, most of the racists and anti-Semites are voting Trump. I really hate to hear that anyone thinks that the Northeast is the only part of the country where the majority of people don't assign value to people based on their heritage, race, religion. Thankfully, that isn't true. Honestly, I think that more than anything, the variable that most factors into people being prejudiced against those of different religion, race and heritage is age. I think that with as much millennial bashing that goes on, we should recognize young people for generally being more open minded and accepting of those who are different. I know that this probably sounds ageist, and I don't mean to imply that all older people are racists, they aren't. I do think that age is more relevant than what part of the country a person is from. I cannot quote any studies that prove that, it's merely my opinion.

    I misread what you'd written, I think. Of course Bernie didn't get nominated, or drag "his party" down with him. You were obviously referring to DT! : )
      October 26, 2016 7:49 PM MDT
    1

  • 372
    The speech you quote describes perfectly how the right-wing (Republicans, primarly) has shot itself in the foot over the last few decades. From impeaching Bill C. on a silly charge, to emasculating sound regulations leading to a major world-wide recession, to cutting taxes for the wealthy and starting a hugely expensive war at the same time, to invading a sovereign country on false trumped-up charges, (pun intended), and finally, to putting party ahead of country in obstructing in every possible way the Obama Administration. 

    As an ex-Republican, I will not shed a tear as it disappears into the dustbin of history. This post was edited by Louie at October 26, 2016 9:31 AM MDT
      October 25, 2016 10:03 PM MDT
    2

  • 2500
    And Reagan trailed Carter by something like 6% in the polls right up to election day. We shall see . . .
      October 25, 2016 10:22 PM MDT
    0

  • 13277
    But Reagan ran a strong campaign and was quite competent and suited to be president. He wasn't a narcissistic, misogynistic, moronic demagogue like Trump.
      October 25, 2016 11:00 PM MDT
    0

  • 2500
    But . . .but . . . but . . .

    You forget that Reagan was also portrayed as such by "the media". He was only a "dumb" actor. He didn't have a chance. Carter was their man. Unlike you, I remember those days all too well. And now there's a LOT of angry people out there, people pissed at "the Establishment". 

    Like I said, we shall see. This post was edited by my2cents at November 3, 2016 5:23 AM MDT
      October 26, 2016 8:20 AM MDT
    0

  • 3934
    @StuB and Salty Herbert,

    Sorry, No. Reagan was NOT competent and suited to be President. He WAS a dumb actor who believed in self-financing tax cuts, winnable nuclear wars, "off-the-shelf" unaccountable covert spy agencies, that trees cause air pollution, that space-lasers powered by nuclear bombs would somehow make the world safe from nuclear bombs, and that he was at the liberation of Nazi concentration camps (while spending all of WWII in Hollywood, CA).

    Yes, he was more subtle about coding his RAWF bigotry/xenophobia ("welfare queens", "strong young bucks", etc.), while Trump is more blatant about it, but the two are far more similar than different upon further inspection.



      October 26, 2016 8:33 AM MDT
    3

  • 2500
    You just can't stop it with the jokes (or the juvenile name calling).

    Yes, another comedian, Bill Maher; now there's a credible analysis. It used to be that "the left", the communists, at least had members of the news media foist their "opinions" on the public as "fact", but you can't even come up with that much credibility anymore. 

    When Reagan took office inflation was lower in many third-world countries that in the USA. Home mortgage interest rates were touching 20% (the prime rate actually peaked at somewhere just north of 20% shortly after Reagan took office), people couldn't buy a job; the US economy was in the tank thanks mainly to Carter. The Soviet Union (your "beloved", you wouldn't be a "sleeper" agent for that failed empire, would you?) was standing in its full glory having just shot down a civilian jetliner a couple of years earlier without any world retribution and was rattling sabres with the like of China as well as the USA (the USA looked as weak a a small kitten to them thanks to Carter's gutting the military). . .  Sounds almost like our situation today, except for the home mortgage interest rates; if only people could find full-time employment to qualify for one; ah, that Obamacare effect . . .

    When Reagan left office the economy was booming, at least for people willing to work (probably wasn't so good for the lazy), a boom that lasted through the Clinton administration. The USA's defensive military was strong once again. The Soviet Union was no more, gone. The list in the plus column is longer than a witch's dream.

    So go pedal your organic fertilizer somewhere else. We're (as in the American people) are all filled up on it.
      October 26, 2016 9:24 AM MDT
    1

  • 46117
    When Reagan left office he had Alzheimer's in full swing.  Whatever positive behaviors were committed by Reagan were done by his minions.  He was totally out of it for half his last term.

    So marbles are lost with both guys.  One because of brain damage and the other with a brain still in it's original wrapping that was never opened much less used.



      October 26, 2016 9:30 AM MDT
    1

  • 3934
    @Salty Herbert -- You are a fine one to talk about "credibility" when you fail to note basic facts like...

    A) The high interest rates in the late 1970s were due to the Federal Reserve in response to the oil shocks of the 1970s, largely the result of President Nixon giving in to Israeli nuclear blackmail during the 1973 war (leading to the OPEC oil embargo, leading to oil-price-driven high inflation)

    B) KAL 007 was shot down in 1983, 2 YEARS AFTER REAGAN TOOK OFFICE, and, yes, because KAL 007's flight path intersected that of an EC-135 electronic spy plane (which the US had repeatedly flown off the Kamchatka peninsula in intelligence-gathering missions. Imagine how we'd feel in the Russkies had repeatedly flown similar planes near Vandenburgh AFB), the USSR military had SOME reason to suspect KAL 007 was a spy plane (Yes, they SHOULD have done more to positively identify it, but their suspicions were not entirely unwarranted).

    I get it. Saint Reagan is the greatest thing since sliced bread and no amount of empirical evidence to the contrary will dissaude you from that belief. As Maher noted, RAWFs are the party of blind religious worship....;-D...
      October 26, 2016 9:33 AM MDT
    0

  • 2500

    Ah, those blinded by left-wing "idolatry", I mean ideologically . But let's look at your false banter . . .

    A) The high interest rates in the late 1970s were due to the Federal Reserve in response to the oil shocks of the 1970s, largely the result of President Nixon giving in to Israeli nuclear blackmail during the 1973 war (leading to the OPEC oil embargo, leading to oil-price-driven high inflation)

    Got a credible source for your anti-Semitic statement? No? The Federal Reserve's Paul Volcker had to raise interest rates in a effort to get the Carter administration's high inflation rate under control. (Ford's administration was keenly aware of the inflation problem and did had it in check and on the way down prior to Carter taking office.) And while the high oil prices were a contributing factor they were only a small part of the problem. (We have always had more than just the middle east as a petroleum source, by the way.) It took Reagan's economic policies to really break that inflation cycle. Interest rates remained higher, although not in the low 20%'s, for quite some time but the economy started to grow quite nicely once again. (And I seem to remember that Reagan continued the USA's great relationship with Israel so that "excuse" doesn't fly at all.) 

    B) KAL 007 was shot down in 1983, 2 YEARS AFTER REAGAN TOOK OFFICE, and, yes, because KAL 007's flight path intersected that of an EC-135 electronic spy plane (which the US had repeatedly flown off the Kamchatka peninsula in intelligence-gathering missions. Imagine how we'd feel in the Russkies had repeatedly flown similar planes near Vandenburgh AFB), the USSR military had SOME reason to suspect KAL 007 was a spy plane (Yes, they SHOULD have done more to positively identify it, but their suspicions were not entirely unwarranted).

    Who said anything about KAL 007? But now that you bring up the fact that your countrymen under Andropov shot down a SECOND passenger airliner killing all 269 souls on-board . . . That might have almost been understandable if the Soviet Union had been in a hot war with someone, anyone, at the time; almost. But what they did for a second time would be more akin to the USA shooting down an Aeroflot passenger flight that passed a little too close to the Electric Boat Company's facility in Groton, CT on approach to JFK (something that happened on a very regular basis, by the way).   

    The senseless shooting down of the first airliner, the one that I refer to, the one that you gratuitously seem to forget, happened back in 1978, about 2 YEARS BEFORE REAGAN TOOK OFFICE, while Carter was our President and Brezhnev was still at the helm in the USSR. Fortunately KAL902 was shot down over land near Murmansk in the western Soviet Union. Fortunately, and by the grace of God, the flight crew was able to set down on a frozen lake with only 2 people lost. (2 too many, by the way). It served as a harbinger of things to come from "the Evil Empire" in their last-ditch efforts to survive. The second incident was on the Soviet Union, just like the first one, not on the USA or Reagan. 

    I get it. Saint Reagan is the greatest thing since sliced bread and no amount of empirical evidence to the contrary will dissaude you from that belief. As Maher noted, RAWFs are the party of blind religious worship....;-D...

    No, you don't get it, and I doubt that you ever will. There was no "St. Reagan" as you sarcastically want to think. He was a human being, just like anyone else that has ever occupied that Office. He made mistakes too. But you're the one ignoring the "empirical" and actual evidence. The economy did get much better under his hand and the world again had (sometimes begrudgingly) respect for the USA. Even that "Evil Empire", the Soviet Union, fell, largely because of his efforts. And he even put "Qaddafi Duck" in check without killing him and setting the middle east on fire in the process. Sorry if your misguide ideology, your religion, caused you to miss the boat on all that . . . ;-D...

      October 26, 2016 12:16 PM MDT
    0

  • 13277
    Reagan was not as dumb as you think. He just happened to believe in conservative ideas. Of course, he was an intellectual giant compared to Trump.
      October 26, 2016 10:11 AM MDT
    0

  • 3934
    @StuB -- Reagan was "smart" in the same sense the Dr. Strangelove character Jack D. Ripper was "smart" or my demented 85-year-old mother is "smart" when she denies her obvious physical and cognitive limitations.

    Impasionned flowing rhetoric in defense of idiotic ideas (see my partial list in a previous answer) may be indicative of intellectual capability in defense of ideology, but if we define "smart" as the ability to take empirical information and draw reasonable inferences from it which withstand scrutiny, then Reagan was as dumb as a stump.


      October 26, 2016 10:36 AM MDT
    0

  • He really was only a dumb actor, what's your point.
      October 26, 2016 8:38 AM MDT
    2

  • 13277
    "Unlike you, I remember those days all too well. And now there's a LOT of angry people out there, people pissed at "the Establishment". You probably don't get that because your income is courtesy of "the government" and their taking the sweat of those that actually do work."

    Excuse me? First, I'm 56 and remember the late 1970s and early 1980s very well - I graduated college in 1982 and voted for President Reagan in 1984, despite being a graduate student on the very liberal campus of a very prestigious university in Connecticut, the same one that produced your buddy, President Dubya Bush. Anyone with a brain knows that Reagan was no dummy and that nobody capable of being elected POTUS is stupid.

    Second, you know nothing about me, my family, and my life, so where do you get off saying that my income is courtesy of the government? Because I'm a Democrat? FYI, my income comes from MY TWO JOBS AND MY PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE, not from any government. I also know nothing about you, but I bet I work at least as hard or harder than you who has so much time to be "pissed at the Establishment." As it happens, there are many hard-working, patriotic Americans who are Democrats and voted for President Obama and will soon vote for your next president, Hillary Clinton - as will quite a few Republicans.
    This post was edited by Stu Spelling Bee at October 28, 2016 12:05 AM MDT
      October 28, 2016 12:00 AM MDT
    0

  • As an outsider, and not inflamed by the local possessions, may I observe these points ..
    1. Many parts of the world have socialist leaning governments and survive quite well ... Their citizens are often more happy than yours and certainly not prone to the violence you inflict upon yourselves
    2. I can understand trump supporters, I think ... They're sick of being the one's to make all the sacrifices while a select group makes all the money .... They want change, the sad fact is it's a sociopath that's making the promise of change
    3. Many of us out here aren't happy about the creeping version of American capitalism that's spreading ... The dog eat dog kind that governments seen to pander to
    4. I do believe there will be a revolution due to this election ... I just pray it's a revolution in thought, and nothing worse

    This is a great simplification, I know .... But it sums up my thoughts on where you guys find yourself ... Good luck
      October 25, 2016 10:22 PM MDT
    3

  • About the dog eat dog world of American capitalism, I'm pretty sure it had not much to do with the way lands were appropriated in your land in the creation of big conglomerates and live stock keepers. I'm not sure they did that out of social conscience. But like you said. As an outsider we have the license to be simplification prone.
      October 26, 2016 8:45 AM MDT
    0

  • Hi Lago ... We here are not innocent ... I'll be there first to admit that ... We treated and still do, the original owners appallingly ... But once upon a time the profits seemed to be more equally dished out
      October 26, 2016 2:25 PM MDT
    0