US midterm elections: Barack Obama’s legacy could be ruined in one day

chuckd · November 8, 2014

Republicans had a chance to beat Senator Obama in 2008 and they didn't. They also had a chance to beat him in 2012 and they didn't.

But they've beaten him in a mid-term election in which he wasn't even on the ballot?

Some posters are going to hurt their backs by setting the bar so low.

Ah, but you see, his policies were on the ballot.

It's clear to everyone how much you want to believe this, but this it's just not true. But feel free to prove me wrong and post all the federal, state and local ballots which explicitly show his policies on the ballot.

And just so there is no misunderstanding, I didn't vote for Obama either. But he won twice, and rather handily.

Since you are choosing to be childishly pedantic, let me add what "He who must be believed" said about his own policies.

up-country_sinclair · November 8, 2014

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Republicans had a chance to beat Senator Obama in 2008 and they didn't. They also had a chance to beat him in 2012 and they didn't.

But they've beaten him in a mid-term election in which he wasn't even on the ballot?

Some posters are going to hurt their backs by setting the bar so low. alt=giggle.gif>

Ah, but you see, his policies were on the ballot.

It's clear to everyone how much you want to believe this, but this it's just not true. But feel free to prove me wrong and post all the federal, state and local ballots which explicitly show his policies on the ballot.

And just so there is no misunderstanding, I didn't vote for Obama either. But he won twice, and rather handily.

Up country, If you think that this was just a regular mid term election then you haven't been paying very much attention to the results across the country. This mid term was all about the Obama Presidency and the way the Democrats have been governing (or not governing in the case of Harry Reid), not only did the Republicans move from 45 to take a majority of the seats in the Senate, they will have at least 54 seats and perhaps 55 when the dust clears if there is a recount in Virginia, add to that a much larger increase in the House seats to a number that they have not seen since just after WW2, but that's only half the story the Republicans won a substantial majority of the Governors seats the most critical of which were in OHIO and FLORIDA, but they even won the Governorship in Democrat states like Illinois, Michigan and Wisconson, and when you dig down deeper you will find that they now control more State legislatures than they have since the 1920's So to say that Obama wasn't on the ballot is not only being simplistic, but you are missing the entire picture of what just happened last Tuesday in the U.S., it was a seismic shift that will have ramification well beyond the 2016 elections

I pay attention to what history says about midterm elections:

Since 1912, presidents have lost an average of 32 House seats in their first midterm and 29 in their second.

In the past 100 years only one two-term president gained House seats in his second midterm: Bill Clinton, who picked up five in 1998. In the senate (going back to FDR) the president’s party has been more likely to lose senate seats than gain seats in the first midterms. Even presidents now considered popular lost Senate seats. FDR lost 6 in 1938 and 9 in 1942. Dwight Eisenhower lost 13 in 1958. Ronald Reagan lost 8 in 1986.

Publicus · November 8, 2014

Edison Research did national exit polling for the NYT and here are some of the findings.

In even this election voters aged 18-29 voted for Democrats, 54% against 43% that voted for Republican party candidates.

Voters aged 30-44 voted for Democratic candidates by 50% to 48% that voted for Republicans.

Blacks voted 89% Democratic and Hispanics voted 63% Democratic party.

Of the voters who said Obamacare was "just about right" as it is, 80% were Democrats, 19% were Republicans. Among the voters who said Obamacare "did not go far enough," 78% were Democrats, 19% Republicans.

Forty-six percent of Tuesday's Republican party voters actually approved of the job Congress has not done.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/04/us/politics/2014-exit-polls.html?_r=0

Edited November 8, 2014 by Publicus

VegasVic · November 8, 2014

The results are worse than I thought they would be, but remember who votes in a presidential year is VERY DIFFERENT than who votes in midterm years. Hillary is good to go!
TO THE WHITEHOUSE! alt=clap2.gif>

name one accomplishment Hillary did a Secretary of State?

I can't think of any major accomplishments that she achieved as Sec. of State, however she did make one brilliant move when she sent Susan Rice in her place to lie to all 5 Sunday morning news shows that Benghazi happened because of an off color video That was really classic Hillary at her best I mean poor Susan Rice was already viewed as a very incompetent individual who was given a political post for helping out with the campaign, and so Hillary felt why not just throw her under the bus and send her out to lie to all those Sunday morning political shows, it supposedly gives Hillary an out when this issue comes up! Not too worry though, Hillary has more baggage than a busy bellman at the MGM Grand on busy weekend There is enough of the U.S. electorate that voted for Obama that now has buyers remorse, so I don't think we need be concerned about Hillary becoming President anytime soon

VegasVic · November 8, 2014

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script

It's clear to everyone how much you want to believe this, but this it's just not true. But feel free to prove me wrong and post all the federal, state and local ballots which explicitly show his policies on the ballot.

And just so there is no misunderstanding, I didn't vote for Obama either. But he won twice, and rather handily.

Up country, If you think that this was just a regular mid term election then you haven't been paying very much attention to the results across the country. This mid term was all about the Obama Presidency and the way the Democrats have been governing (or not governing in the case of Harry Reid), not only did the Republicans move from 45 to take a majority of the seats in the Senate, they will have at least 54 seats and perhaps 55 when the dust clears if there is a recount in Virginia, add to that a much larger increase in the House seats to a number that they have not seen since just after WW2, but that's only half the story the Republicans won a substantial majority of the Governors seats the most critical of which were in OHIO and FLORIDA, but they even won the Governorship in Democrat states like Illinois, Michigan and Wisconson, and when you dig down deeper you will find that they now control more State legislatures than they have since the 1920's So to say that Obama wasn't on the ballot is not only being simplistic, but you are missing the entire picture of what just happened last Tuesday in the U.S., it was a seismic shift that will have ramification well beyond the 2016 elections alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20>

I pay attention to what history says about midterm elections:

Since 1912, presidents have lost an average of 32 House seats in their first midterm and 29 in their second.

In the past 100 years only one two-term president gained House seats in his second midterm: Bill Clinton, who picked up five in 1998. In the senate (going back to FDR) the president’s party has been more likely to lose senate seats than gain seats in the first midterms. Even presidents now considered popular lost Senate seats. FDR lost 6 in 1938 and 9 in 1942. Dwight Eisenhower lost 13 in 1958. Ronald Reagan lost 8 in 1986.

Up country, The results are in my friend , just take those blinders off and look at the big picture and stop cherry picking your facts

Publicus · November 8, 2014

Edison Research did national exit polling Tuesday for the NYT so here are more of the findings.

Of the two party vote, 52% of voters were Republicans, 47% were Democrats, which runs contrary to the national voter party preference data..

Of all voters Tuesday, 71% who disapprove of gay marriage were Republicans.

Of those who disapprove of legalization of marijuana, 67% were Republican.

Of those who believe global warming is not a serious problem, 84% were Republican.

Sixty-nine percent of voters who said they had no religion voted Democratic, 29% voted Republican, which leaves god with a lot of bipartisan work to do.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/04/us/politics/2014-exit-polls.html?_r=0

Edited November 8, 2014 by Publicus

chuckd · November 8, 2014

A few more posts on the Edison Research poll and you will have it all on line, thereby avoiding that pesky Fair Use rule.

up-country_sinclair · November 8, 2014

It's not me who's wearing blinders. I didn't vote for Obama and I've voted ®, (D), and (I) in previous presidential elections. The facts make it clear that on the national level, this midterm election wasn't very much different than any other--the party of a sitting president in his second term got clobbered.

JDGRUEN · November 8, 2014

@up country - Post #302

Yes - all that is correct... but the kicker is ... that in 2016 tens of millions of Americans - adult voters with memories will remember 8 awful years of witnessing the leader of the Democrat party attempt to destroy all that has made America great.

At one time the Democrat Party was made up of reasonable people who called themselves liberal. But in the past six years the Democrat Party has become dominated by LEFTISTS under obama and his cohorts, minions and partners in crime. In the 2016 Presidential elections any Democrat of the same ilk as obama will be run out of town on a rail. In 2016 - eight years of constant - incessant destruction of American values and traditions will not be ignored or forgotten by Americans. obama has already tattooed in their active memories.

And in the next two years obama has NO magic to get people employed because he is against everything reasonable to increase employment. obama is the reason that all Democrat candidates will wear his cloak ... He and his wife have shown nothing but hatred and contempt for the long standing traditions and values of America, He has made it nearly impossible for a person over age 55 to get a job...and obama has done a thousand more destructive actions.

No Democrat candidate will be able to cast off the shadow of obama

obama has stained the Democrat Party and will taint the atmosphere of the 2016 presidential elections. The 2016 Presidential Candidate will not be able to wash off the stench of obama and the Presidential Elections of 2016 will be a replay of 2014 mid term Elections on a bigger scale ...

The best thing the Democrats can hope for in the next year is for obama to resign and go play golf so that they have a chance of rebuilding their image which is in the toilet bowl now.

NeverSure · November 8, 2014

Very true Hawker! The Millennials who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 are no longer 20, 21, 22 ect. they are now 26, 27, 28 and they are figuring out weather they have a College degree or not there just aren't very many good paying jobs being created in the U.S. and now that they are off of Mommy and Daddys medical insurance and are forced into Obamacare, they see what all the fuss was about Some of the Democrat talking heads are assuming that they will automatically get the Millennials back in 2016, but I think that they are grasping at straws There is an old saying that Winston Churchill made famous "if you are not a little bit liberal when you are 21 then you are cold hearted, but if you are not a conservative by the time you are 40 then you are a fool" many of these kids who voted for Obama are waking up and smelling the coffee of reality a little earlier than 40, so my guess is that as a voting block they will not be much of a factor in 2016, and many of them have already jumped ship and took the blinders off and will likely vote Republican in 2016

Someone once said that a Republican is a Democrat whose been mugged by reality.

hawker9000 · November 8, 2014

The results are worse than I thought they would be, but remember who votes in a presidential year is VERY DIFFERENT than who votes in midterm years. Hillary is good to go!

TO THE WHITEHOUSE!

name one accomplishment Hillary did a Secretary of State?

Well, no more than four of her people were killed in Benghazi. And only one ambassador. And she finally DID see the Obama sinking ship for what it was and finally resign...

(HARD question!)

Publicus · November 9, 2014

The results are worse than I thought they would be, but remember who votes in a presidential year is VERY DIFFERENT than who votes in midterm years. Hillary is good to go!

TO THE WHITEHOUSE!

name one accomplishment Hillary did a Secretary of State?

Well, no more than four of her people were killed in Benghazi. And only one ambassador. And she finally DID see the Obama sinking ship for what it was and finally resign...

(HARD question!)

Each president since Jimmy Carter has had a foreign embassy crisis and a few presidents have had more than one such crisis, to include Bill Clinton who all the same responded effectively.

Then there's Geo W Bush who is the all time record holder for US embassy disasters to include loss of life, personnel and people injured, damage done.

On top of all that, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. It was left to Barack Obama nine years after to get bin Laden, not Bush, not Cheney, not Colin Powell. It was done by Prez Barack Obama and SecState Hillary Clinton.

US Embassies & Consulates attacked under Bush:

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan

Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Truck bomb kills 17.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan

Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan

Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan

Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomat directly targeted by the assailants.

September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria

Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.

January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece

A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.

July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey

Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen

Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen

Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.

The University of Maryland database also lists 64 attacks on American diplomatic targets during the George W. Bush administration.

How many times again was the US Consulate in Karachi blasted and bombed, and how many were killed, injured?

And how many times was the US Embassy in Yemen attacked, riddled with bullets, blasted by bombs and how many died or were injured in explosions?

Say again...........

chuckd · November 9, 2014

I just glanced at the list of attacks on US Embassies and Consulates being attacked.

Since no link was provided by the post author, I looked at the first claim that seemed suspicious and didn't coincide with my memory of events back then.

This is the incident posted above:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Truck bomb kills 17."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was indeed, an attack in Riyadh on 20 February 2003. However the attack was NOT on a "diplomatic compound" as stated. The 20 February attack in Riyadh was an attack on a parked car that killed one citizen of the UK who worked for British Aerospace (BAE)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other incidents happened on 12 May 2003 when three privately owned housing compounds were attacked.

1. The Jedawall compound was attacked with two suicide bombs killing four Saudi employees. I had many friends living in this compound. Thankfully none of them were injured.

2. The Al Hamra compound was attacked with two suicide cars, killing 11. I knew the owner of this compound who lost his life in the attack.

3. The Vinnell compound was attacked with a suicide truck bomb killing 8 US and 7 Saudi citizens.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other event which is described by the post above as happening on 20 February, killing 17 by a truck bomb, is more likely to have taken place on 8 November 2003.

This attack was performed by driving a suicide truck loaded with explosives into the privately owned Al-Mohaya compound just on the edge of Riyadh, killing 17 and injuring 122. No westerners were killed as the compound had become occupied by mainly Pakistan, Lebanese and other Easterners. We looked at this compound for housing some US employees but chose not to, due to its location.

There were two other minor incidents in Riyadh in early February 2003 which did not involve an attack on a housing compound, Embassy or Consulate, as did none of the above.

In truth, there were no attacks on Embassies or Consulates during 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. To the best of my knowledge, no diplomatic personnel were either killed or injured by these attacks.

Blaming Bush for these attacks is really rather ridiculous. I was living there then and none of us were blaming Bush for the attacks.

We were blaming the terrorists who were doing the attacking.

My source? http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/33890.pdf

Publicus · November 9, 2014

I just glanced at the list of attacks on US Embassies and Consulates being attacked.

Since no link was provided by the post author, I looked at the first claim that seemed suspicious and didn't coincide with my memory of events back then.

This is the incident posted above:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Truck bomb kills 17."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was indeed, an attack in Riyadh on 20 February 2003. However the attack was NOT on a "diplomatic compound" as stated. The 20 February attack in Riyadh was an attack on a parked car that killed one citizen of the UK who worked for British Aerospace (BAE)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other incidents happened on 12 May 2003 when three privately owned housing compounds were attacked.

1. The Jedawall compound was attacked with two suicide bombs killing four Saudi employees. I had many friends living in this compound. Thankfully none of them were injured.

2. The Al Hamra compound was attacked with two suicide cars, killing 11. I knew the owner of this compound who lost his life in the attack.

3. The Vinnell compound was attacked with a suicide truck bomb killing 8 US and 7 Saudi citizens.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other event which is described by the post above as happening on 20 February, killing 17 by a truck bomb, is more likely to have taken place on 8 November 2003.

This attack was performed by driving a suicide truck loaded with explosives into the privately owned Al-Mohaya compound just on the edge of Riyadh, killing 17 and injuring 122. No westerners were killed as the compound had become occupied by mainly Pakistan, Lebanese and other Easterners. We looked at this compound for housing some US employees but chose not to, due to its location.

There were two other minor incidents in Riyadh in early February 2003 which did not involve an attack on a housing compound, Embassy or Consulate, as did none of the above.

In truth, there were no attacks on Embassies or Consulates during 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. To the best of my knowledge, no diplomatic personnel were either killed or injured by these attacks.

Blaming Bush for these attacks is really rather ridiculous. I was living there then and none of us were blaming Bush for the attacks.

We were blaming the terrorists who were doing the attacking.

My source? http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/33890.pdf

Thanks for that and thank you for your service in the armed forces of the United States. When ever someone says thank you to me, I always feel an added sense of appreciation of my own voluntary military service in the armed forces of my country, the United States.

Politifact.com has checked into various statements concerning terror attacks on US facilities abroad, which would of course include embassies, consulate offices and others.

Politifact went to the identical database I referenced, the Global Terrorism Database, and said, "Readers asked us whether it’s true that under Bush, 'there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world, (and) 60 people died.'

"We turned to the Global Terrorism Database, a project headquartered at the University of Maryland. The database documents terrorist attacks around the world going back to the 1970s, and experts told us it is the best resource available for this fact-check."

Politifact was checking in part the claim made on MSNBC in May this year by Democratic party Rep John Garamendi that, "...during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died. In Karachi, there was a death of one of our diplomats, and those were not investigated during that period of time because it was a tragedy."

As the link below discusses in detail, the Politifact pursuit of the facts concluded that,

"Garamendi said that 'during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died.' There are actually different ways to count the number of attacks, especially when considering attacks on ambassadors and embassy personnel who were traveling to or from embassy property. Overall, we found Garamendi slightly understated the number of deadly attacks and total fatalities, even using a strict definition. Garamendi’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/

So with "additional information or clarification," it would be highly likely the claims would be flat out True.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Publicus

Loptr · November 9, 2014

Edison Research did national exit polling for the NYT and here are some of the findings.

In even this election voters aged 18-29 voted for Democrats, 54% against 43% that voted for Republican party candidates.

Voters aged 30-44 voted for Democratic candidates by 50% to 48% that voted for Republicans.

Blacks voted 89% Democratic and Hispanics voted 63% Democratic party.

Of the voters who said Obamacare was "just about right" as it is, 80% were Democrats, 19% were Republicans. Among the voters who said Obamacare "did not go far enough," 78% were Democrats, 19% Republicans.

Forty-six percent of Tuesday's Republican party voters actually approved of the job Congress has not done.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/04/us/politics/2014-exit-polls.html?_r=0

You just invalidated any credibility these polls might have had since they were for a biased entity, the NYT... You know how this works, you're people lie for the Dems and the GOP pundits lie for them... Anything else is pedantry...

Loptr · November 9, 2014

Republicans had a chance to beat Senator Obama in 2008 and they didn't. They also had a chance to beat him in 2012 and they didn't.

But they've beaten him in a mid-term election in which he wasn't even on the ballot?

Some posters are going to hurt their backs by setting the bar so low.

Ah, but you see, his policies were on the ballot.

It's clear to everyone how much you want to believe this, but this it's just not true. But feel free to prove me wrong and post all the federal, state and local ballots which explicitly show his policies on the ballot.

And just so there is no misunderstanding, I didn't vote for Obama either. But he won twice, and rather handily.

Since you are choosing to be childishly pedantic, let me add what "He who must be believed" said about his own policies.

Oh dear, the liberals don't like it when you prove them wrong, then rub their nose in it... Something about harshing their mellow or some other nonsense...

Publicus · November 9, 2014

Edison Research did national exit polling for the NYT and here are some of the findings.

In even this election voters aged 18-29 voted for Democrats, 54% against 43% that voted for Republican party candidates.

Voters aged 30-44 voted for Democratic candidates by 50% to 48% that voted for Republicans.

Blacks voted 89% Democratic and Hispanics voted 63% Democratic party.

Of the voters who said Obamacare was "just about right" as it is, 80% were Democrats, 19% were Republicans. Among the voters who said Obamacare "did not go far enough," 78% were Democrats, 19% Republicans.

Forty-six percent of Tuesday's Republican party voters actually approved of the job Congress has not done.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/04/us/politics/2014-exit-polls.html?_r=0

You just invalidated any credibility these polls might have had since they were for a biased entity, the NYT... You know how this works, you're people lie for the Dems and the GOP pundits lie for them... Anything else is pedantry...

If institutions such as mass communication and also public affairs journalism have no credibility or viability, whether right or left or somewhere in between, then how far out to either extreme do we have to go to get information and to analyze it....nevermind because that's a rhetorical question

Stepping outside the box or the proverbial circle is one thing, but entering another universe or dimension as with ZeroHedge is quite another matter entirely. The alternative of choice to the wingnuts.

chuckd · November 10, 2014

I just glanced at the list of attacks on US Embassies and Consulates being attacked.

Since no link was provided by the post author, I looked at the first claim that seemed suspicious and didn't coincide with my memory of events back then.

This is the incident posted above:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Truck bomb kills 17."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was indeed, an attack in Riyadh on 20 February 2003. However the attack was NOT on a "diplomatic compound" as stated. The 20 February attack in Riyadh was an attack on a parked car that killed one citizen of the UK who worked for British Aerospace (BAE)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other incidents happened on 12 May 2003 when three privately owned housing compounds were attacked.

1. The Jedawall compound was attacked with two suicide bombs killing four Saudi employees. I had many friends living in this compound. Thankfully none of them were injured.

2. The Al Hamra compound was attacked with two suicide cars, killing 11. I knew the owner of this compound who lost his life in the attack.

3. The Vinnell compound was attacked with a suicide truck bomb killing 8 US and 7 Saudi citizens.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other event which is described by the post above as happening on 20 February, killing 17 by a truck bomb, is more likely to have taken place on 8 November 2003.

This attack was performed by driving a suicide truck loaded with explosives into the privately owned Al-Mohaya compound just on the edge of Riyadh, killing 17 and injuring 122. No westerners were killed as the compound had become occupied by mainly Pakistan, Lebanese and other Easterners. We looked at this compound for housing some US employees but chose not to, due to its location.

There were two other minor incidents in Riyadh in early February 2003 which did not involve an attack on a housing compound, Embassy or Consulate, as did none of the above.

In truth, there were no attacks on Embassies or Consulates during 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. To the best of my knowledge, no diplomatic personnel were either killed or injured by these attacks.

Blaming Bush for these attacks is really rather ridiculous. I was living there then and none of us were blaming Bush for the attacks.

We were blaming the terrorists who were doing the attacking.

My source? http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/33890.pdf

Thanks for that and thank you for your service in the armed forces of the United States. When ever someone says thank you to me, I always feel an added sense of appreciation of my own voluntary military service in the armed forces of my country, the United States.

Politifact.com has checked into various statements concerning terror attacks on US facilities abroad, which would of course include embassies, consulate offices and others.

Politifact went to the identical database I referenced, the Global Terrorism Database, and said, "Readers asked us whether it’s true that under Bush, 'there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world, (and) 60 people died.'

"We turned to the Global Terrorism Database, a project headquartered at the University of Maryland. The database documents terrorist attacks around the world going back to the 1970s, and experts told us it is the best resource available for this fact-check."

Politifact was checking in part the claim made on MSNBC in May this year by Democratic party Rep John Garamendi that, "...during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died. In Karachi, there was a death of one of our diplomats, and those were not investigated during that period of time because it was a tragedy."

As the link below discusses in detail, the Politifact pursuit of the facts concluded that,

"Garamendi said that 'during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died.' There are actually different ways to count the number of attacks, especially when considering attacks on ambassadors and embassy personnel who were traveling to or from embassy property. Overall, we found Garamendi slightly understated the number of deadly attacks and total fatalities, even using a strict definition. Garamendi’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/

So with "additional information or clarification," it would be highly likely the claims would be flat out True.

As pointed out, your original post was incorrect. Bringing up a new source trying to support your original 11 attacks with a post concerning 13 attacks is hardly informative.

Perhaps with "additional information or clarification" your 13 incidents might prove to be "flat out True".

My position is at least one of your original eleven is "flat out false".

Suggestion...Hole...shovel...stop.

NeverSure · November 10, 2014

It's clear to everyone how much you want to believe this, but this it's just not true. But feel free to prove me wrong and post all the federal, state and local ballots which explicitly show his policies on the ballot.

And just so there is no misunderstanding, I didn't vote for Obama either. But he won twice, and rather handily.

"And just so there is no misunderstanding, I didn't vote for Obama either. But he won twice, and rather handily."

Not true. He won by just barely more than 51% of the vote both times. They were squeakers.

And he had already put Hillary away rather handily. She would have lost. He almost did.

JDGRUEN · November 10, 2014

Edison Research did national exit polling for the NYT and here are some of the findings.

In even this election voters aged 18-29 voted for Democrats, 54% against 43% that voted for Republican party candidates.

Voters aged 30-44 voted for Democratic candidates by 50% to 48% that voted for Republicans.

Blacks voted 89% Democratic and Hispanics voted 63% Democratic party.

Of the voters who said Obamacare was "just about right" as it is, 80% were Democrats, 19% were Republicans. Among the voters who said Obamacare "did not go far enough," 78% were Democrats, 19% Republicans.

Forty-six percent of Tuesday's Republican party voters actually approved of the job Congress has not done.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/04/us/politics/2014-exit-polls.html?_r=0

You just invalidated any credibility these polls might have had since they were for a biased entity, the NYT... You know how this works, you're people lie for the Dems and the GOP pundits lie for them... Anything else is pedantry...

If institutions such as mass communication and also public affairs journalism have no credibility or viability, whether right or left or somewhere in between, then how far out to either extreme do we have to go to get information and to analyze it....nevermind because that's a rhetorical question

Stepping outside the box or the proverbial circle is one thing, but entering another universe or dimension as with ZeroHedge is quite another matter entirely. The alternative of choice to the wingnuts.

Very little in print or via video or via a news caster or via TV personality is believable and has not been for at least 10 years...

The vast majority of news media of all sorts in the USA are nothing more that Propagandists for obama, democrats, gender politics, the gay agenda... anything liberal or leftist ... the only Conservative or moderate news one can read or hear in America comes from on line sources, talk radio and some of the Foxnews programming. Broadcast TV, Cable TV, Satellite TV and most major city news papers are totally biased for obama, democrats, etc, - plus Pro Muslim/Islam and totally biased against Republicans moderate or conservative and anything Christian or traditional.

But as we see from the mid term elections -a huge portion of the people are not in line with the Leftist media.

Publicus · November 10, 2014

I just glanced at the list of attacks on US Embassies and Consulates being attacked.

Since no link was provided by the post author, I looked at the first claim that seemed suspicious and didn't coincide with my memory of events back then.

This is the incident posted above:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Truck bomb kills 17."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was indeed, an attack in Riyadh on 20 February 2003. However the attack was NOT on a "diplomatic compound" as stated. The 20 February attack in Riyadh was an attack on a parked car that killed one citizen of the UK who worked for British Aerospace (BAE)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other incidents happened on 12 May 2003 when three privately owned housing compounds were attacked.

1. The Jedawall compound was attacked with two suicide bombs killing four Saudi employees. I had many friends living in this compound. Thankfully none of them were injured.

2. The Al Hamra compound was attacked with two suicide cars, killing 11. I knew the owner of this compound who lost his life in the attack.

3. The Vinnell compound was attacked with a suicide truck bomb killing 8 US and 7 Saudi citizens.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other event which is described by the post above as happening on 20 February, killing 17 by a truck bomb, is more likely to have taken place on 8 November 2003.

This attack was performed by driving a suicide truck loaded with explosives into the privately owned Al-Mohaya compound just on the edge of Riyadh, killing 17 and injuring 122. No westerners were killed as the compound had become occupied by mainly Pakistan, Lebanese and other Easterners. We looked at this compound for housing some US employees but chose not to, due to its location.

There were two other minor incidents in Riyadh in early February 2003 which did not involve an attack on a housing compound, Embassy or Consulate, as did none of the above.

In truth, there were no attacks on Embassies or Consulates during 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. To the best of my knowledge, no diplomatic personnel were either killed or injured by these attacks.

Blaming Bush for these attacks is really rather ridiculous. I was living there then and none of us were blaming Bush for the attacks.

We were blaming the terrorists who were doing the attacking.

My source? http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/33890.pdf

Thanks for that and thank you for your service in the armed forces of the United States. When ever someone says thank you to me, I always feel an added sense of appreciation of my own voluntary military service in the armed forces of my country, the United States.

Politifact.com has checked into various statements concerning terror attacks on US facilities abroad, which would of course include embassies, consulate offices and others.

Politifact went to the identical database I referenced, the Global Terrorism Database, and said, "Readers asked us whether it’s true that under Bush, 'there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world, (and) 60 people died.'

"We turned to the Global Terrorism Database, a project headquartered at the University of Maryland. The database documents terrorist attacks around the world going back to the 1970s, and experts told us it is the best resource available for this fact-check."

Politifact was checking in part the claim made on MSNBC in May this year by Democratic party Rep John Garamendi that, "...during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died. In Karachi, there was a death of one of our diplomats, and those were not investigated during that period of time because it was a tragedy."

As the link below discusses in detail, the Politifact pursuit of the facts concluded that,

"Garamendi said that 'during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died.' There are actually different ways to count the number of attacks, especially when considering attacks on ambassadors and embassy personnel who were traveling to or from embassy property. Overall, we found Garamendi slightly understated the number of deadly attacks and total fatalities, even using a strict definition. Garamendi’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/

So with "additional information or clarification," it would be highly likely the claims would be flat out True.

As pointed out, your original post was incorrect. Bringing up a new source trying to support your original 11 attacks with a post concerning 13 attacks is hardly informative.

Perhaps with "additional information or clarification" your 13 incidents might prove to be "flat out True".

My position is at least one of your original eleven is "flat out false".

Suggestion...Hole...shovel...stop.

No so fast there dude....sit down, this will only take a sec....ah, you're already seated....good, now as I was saying....

The point is that while Geo W Bush was president there were at least 13 separate attacks against US embassies, consulate offices or other diplomatic facilities abroad, which is what I point out. One diplomat was killed in one of the attacks.

I also point out Bush was not held liable for any of them... none....not then, not ever. That's because the reaction in Washington was bipartisan.

So anything beyond the facts of the attacks to include corrective measures is politics and nothing more.

It is Republican party politics and like a cat with catnip the Republicans have made themselves delirious and fixated over the one in Benghazi.

Try to get back to me on this, okay?

Edited November 10, 2014 by Publicus

Publicus · November 10, 2014

So what happens when congress lies....

They get re-elected.

chuckd · November 10, 2014

So what happens when congress lies....

They get re-elected.

Sometimes they lose...see events of 4 November 2014.

Publicus · November 10, 2014

So what happens when congress lies....

They get re-elected.

Sometimes they lose...see events of 4 November 2014.

That wuz so predictable, my god....

But let's not overlook that the lying rats have to get elected to begin with

After which they truly hone their skills to become ace ckackerjack professional liars...

Did you vote??

chuckd · November 10, 2014

So what happens when congress lies....

They get re-elected.

Sometimes they lose...see events of 4 November 2014.

That wuz so predictable, my god....

But let's not overlook that the lying rats have to get elected to begin with

After which they truly hone their skills to become ace ckackerjack professional liars...

Did you vote??

Yes, even though it is none of your business. How about you?

Edited November 10, 2014 by chuckd

Publicus · November 10, 2014

Edison Research did national exit polling for the NYT and here are some of the findings.

In even this election voters aged 18-29 voted for Democrats, 54% against 43% that voted for Republican party candidates.

Voters aged 30-44 voted for Democratic candidates by 50% to 48% that voted for Republicans.

Blacks voted 89% Democratic and Hispanics voted 63% Democratic party.

Of the voters who said Obamacare was "just about right" as it is, 80% were Democrats, 19% were Republicans. Among the voters who said Obamacare "did not go far enough," 78% were Democrats, 19% Republicans.

Forty-six percent of Tuesday's Republican party voters actually approved of the job Congress has not done.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/04/us/politics/2014-exit-polls.html?_r=0

You just invalidated any credibility these polls might have had since they were for a biased entity, the NYT... You know how this works, you're people lie for the Dems and the GOP pundits lie for them... Anything else is pedantry...

If institutions such as mass communication and also public affairs journalism have no credibility or viability, whether right or left or somewhere in between, then how far out to either extreme do we have to go to get information and to analyze it....nevermind because that's a rhetorical question

Stepping outside the box or the proverbial circle is one thing, but entering another universe or dimension as with ZeroHedge is quite another matter entirely. The alternative of choice to the wingnuts.

Very little in print or via video or via a news caster or via TV personality is believable and has not been for at least 10 years...

The vast majority of news media of all sorts in the USA are nothing more that Propagandists for obama, democrats, gender politics, the gay agenda... anything liberal or leftist ... the only Conservative or moderate news one can read or hear in America comes from on line sources, talk radio and some of the Foxnews programming. Broadcast TV, Cable TV, Satellite TV and most major city news papers are totally biased for obama, democrats, etc, - plus Pro Muslim/Islam and totally biased against Republicans moderate or conservative and anything Christian or traditional.

But as we see from the mid term elections -a huge portion of the people are not in line with the Leftist media.

Your awesome midterm election result was the whacky will of the majority of the 38% that turned out to vote. That's 38% of registered voters, not of the general population.

It is the modern historical record in US politics and elections that the lower the rate of voter participation, the better the outcome for the Republican party.

It's conversely true that the greater the voter participation in an election, the better the outcome for the Democratic party.

That's because most people are Democratic party types whether or not they register to vote, and whether or not they actually vote. There is of course the exception to every rule, but the rule remains the rule.

Expectations for the 2016 election are that upwards of 60% of voters will go to their polling stations, which will be on par with other historical maximum turnouts, so you guys on that side over there still need to pump up the already very active Republican party voter suppression schemes and campaigns, cursing the MSM being one of 'em.

Publicus · November 10, 2014

So what happens when congress lies....

They get re-elected.

Sometimes they lose...see events of 4 November 2014.

That wuz so predictable, my god....

But let's not overlook that the lying rats have to get elected to begin with

After which they truly hone their skills to become ace ckackerjack professional liars...

Did you vote??

Yes, even though it is none of your business. How about you?

Of course!

However, my batting average in this tournament reads as below my weight (which yes is still pretty high ).

My average in 2012 was super but I'm confident of my best season ever in 2016.

Ahem........

VegasVic · November 12, 2014

If institutions such as mass communication and also public affairs journalism have no credibility or viability, whether right or left or somewhere in between, then how far out to either extreme do we have to go to get information and to analyze it....nevermind because that's a rhetorical question

Stepping outside the box or the proverbial circle is one thing, but entering another universe or dimension as with ZeroHedge is quite another matter entirely. The alternative of choice to the wingnuts.

Very little in print or via video or via a news caster or via TV personality is believable and has not been for at least 10 years...

The vast majority of news media of all sorts in the USA are nothing more that Propagandists for obama, democrats, gender politics, the gay agenda... anything liberal or leftist ... the only Conservative or moderate news one can read or hear in America comes from on line sources, talk radio and some of the Foxnews programming. Broadcast TV, Cable TV, Satellite TV and most major city news papers are totally biased for obama, democrats, etc, - plus Pro Muslim/Islam and totally biased against Republicans moderate or conservative and anything Christian or traditional.

But as we see from the mid term elections -a huge portion of the people are not in line with the Leftist media.

Your awesome midterm election result was the whacky will of the majority of the 38% that turned out to vote. That's 38% of registered voters, not of the general population.

It is the modern historical record in US politics and elections that the lower the rate of voter participation, the better the outcome for the Republican party.

It's conversely true that the greater the voter participation in an election, the better the outcome for the Democratic party.

That's because most people are Democratic party types whether or not they register to vote, and whether or not they actually vote. There is of course the exception to every rule, but the rule remains the rule.

Expectations for the 2016 election are that upwards of 60% of voters will go to their polling stations, which will be on par with other historical maximum turnouts, so you guys on that side over there still need to pump up the already very active Republican party voter suppression schemes and campaigns, cursing the MSM being one of 'em.

Hillary is not black nor is she likeable, add to that she has a couple of truckloads of very nasty baggage that will all be brought out for public viewing again Now go back to bed and keep on dreaming about that massive turnout for the Dems in 2016, because the only place you will see those numbers is in your dreams The blacks will not turnout in any numbers even close to either 2008 or 2012, the millennials also will not turn out anywhere close to the 2008 or 2012 numbers and a good percentage of these millennials will have smelled the coffee after they get their dose of a few years out in the "real world" and will become Republicans. Bring on Jeb Bush and John Kasich who are both wildly popular in their home states of Ohio and Florida and the Republicans virtually sew up the 2016 election as there is no road to the White House for the democrats without Ohio or Florida

JDGRUEN · November 12, 2014

Bob Woodward: Democrats Tell Me Privately They Hate Obama Too

Legendary Washington Post reporter and editor Bob Woodward said on a “Face the Nation” panel that when he speaks to Senate Democrats about Obama they are “on fire,” and just as loud in the criticism of the president as Republicans are publicly.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/09/bob-woodward-democrats-tell-me-privately-they-hate-obama-too-video/

metisdead · November 12, 2014

Off topic posts about Nixon's impeachment have been removed as well as the replies

Sign In

US midterm elections: Barack Obama’s legacy could be ruined in one day

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Ulysses G.

chuckd

Just1Voice

Posted Images

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US