- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,957
- Reaction score
- 19,696
- Location
- Rocky Mtn. High
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Is he president of the rest of the world? He is a failure.
In many respects the POTUS is the leader of the free world, so calling him POTUS of the rest of the world is not off the mark. The influence of the US President is very important.
Only in the advancement of conservative values, which are a minority opinion anyway (as evidenced by the fact that Republicans refuse to nominate a conservative). The economy, current opinion polls and world opinion polls say otherwise. Most political science professionals rate him pretty well. I suspect history will treat him even better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
We do, however, appreciate your minority opinion on this.
BTW. As long as Donald Trump is in the race, Obama's approval numbers will continue to grow.
And if any other Republican were nominated todays news would have ended Hillarys campaign. At least that is what Bill Brady,(Candidate for Gov.) an Illinois Democrat said.
I agree (for the most part.... I don't think Cruz would have fared too well) Thanks for letting the Dems run unopposed. The Republicans had their chance, but blew it.
Thanks for nominating a corrupt piece of ****. Who can't handle national security and has lied about it from the start.
The most qualified person ever to run for the position versus the least qualified. The only real question will be the size of the Dem majority in the Senate. Can you say "Madam, President"?
I agree (for the most part.... I don't think Cruz would have fared too well) Thanks for letting the Dems run unopposed. The Republicans had their chance, but blew it.
Then again, the Republicans have turned "shooting themselves in the foot" into an art form.
View attachment 67203786
They should really re-think their position on gun control.
As far as gun control goes, there is tons of evidence that gun control does not work. That's the problem with the liberal mentality that gun control = less violence. Every single mass attack would not have been prevented with the gun control policies that even the Democrats favor and smaller attacks would be roughly the same. Would the Boston Marathon attack not have happened with gun control? I mean you can list every single mass shooting there has been and proposed gun control laws would not have prevented them. Take the Orlando thing. Would banning assault weapons stopped an Orlando massacre? You have zero proof that it would. You just assume that if there was a ban that this guy would not have been able to have an assault rifle anyway. Assuming that an assault weapons ban would have stopped him from obtaining an assault weapn, which it isn't, would you have felt better if had a bunch of guns and killed 20-30 people instead of 49? How do you know he wouldn't have set off fire bombs at all the exits and killed 200 instead of 49? How about Chicago? They have some of the strictest gun control legislation in the country and many people were killed by guns over the fourth of July weekend. Did gun control stop that? I'm saying this as someone who could care less if there were no guns anywhere.
The most qualified person ever to run for the position versus the least qualified. The only real question will be the size of the Dem majority in the Senate. Can you say "Madam, President"?
View attachment 67203792
I was not making a serious post about gun control. I was making humorous comment about the Republican's continued propensity to shoot themselves in the foot.
I agree with the serious point but you did bring up gun control so I addressed that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?