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

[up-country_sinclair]

Obama and the democrats blatantly lied to get a very important bill passed

If the president "blatantly lied", then impeachment proceedings should begin in January. Republicans will have the majority in both the Senate and the House, and it would be a relatively easy path to get the votes required if the facts are as you portray them.

For some reason, however, I haven't heard Speaker Boehner or incoming Senate majority leader McConnell having this on the agenda. In fact, they've been trying to stifle the rabid partisans who won't stop talking about.

Edited November 22, 2014 by up-country_sinclair

[Chicog]

Obama and the democrats blatantly lied to get a very important bill passed

If the president "blatantly lied", then impeachment proceedings should begin in January. Republicans will have the majority in both the Senate and the House, and it would be a relatively easy path to get the votes required if the facts are as you portray them.

For some reason, however, I haven't heard Speaker Boehner or incoming Senate majority leader McConnell having this on the agenda. In fact, they've been trying to stifle the rabid partisans who won't stop talking about.

Possibly because they got what they wanted out of the ACA?

[chuckd]

Obama and the democrats blatantly lied to get a very important bill passed

If the president "blatantly lied", then impeachment proceedings should begin in January. Republicans will have the majority in both the Senate and the House, and it would be a relatively easy path to get the votes required if the facts are as you portray them.

For some reason, however, I haven't heard Speaker Boehner or incoming Senate majority leader McConnell having this on the agenda. In fact, they've been trying to stifle the rabid partisans who won't stop talking about.

He's been lying for the past 8 years and was still elected twice. He won't be impeached, even for this latest power grab.

There are enough votes to draw up articles of impeachment right now. All it takes is a majority of the house to impeach a President.

The trial, however, is held in the Senate where it takes 2/3rd (67) votes to convict. The Senate Democrats will never vote to convict a Democratic President, particularly the first black American.

He would have to beat up Michelle (or vice versa) at a fund raiser before he would be convicted by the Senate.

There will be talk here and there about it, but I don't think it will happen. Much of the talk on impeachment will be from the Democrats, primarily to deflect attention from something else.

Just my opinion.

[chuckd]

The real House investigation into Benghazi is set to kick off in earnest around 5 December.

Actually, now that I think about it, it's not funny.

I could be wrong, but I think there have been at least 5 house "investigations" into what happened in Benghazi, and they all turned up nothing which incriminates the White House.

After countless millions of dollars and thousands of man hours spent which could have been used to pass meaningful legislation to help the American people, and now you say that those investigations somehow weren't real?

So if they weren't real, then what were they?

You do know that most of the government employees and contractors that were present in Benghazi during the attack were never interviewed by the Inspector General or by Congress?

I think it is high time the truth came out about what actually happened and who did what and why.

We know Obama was briefed in the White House around 1700-1730 while the attack was going on. He told Leon Panetta and Gen. Dempsey to do "whatever it takes" to assist the Benghazi people then proceeded to go upstairs to the Presidential quarters and was not heard from again nor did he offer any further input.

Obama was not seen again until the following morning when he departed the White House for a fund raising trip to Las Vegas. He was and is the Commander in Chief and his prime duty should have been to insure that everything was being done to secure the safety of his people.

You and most Democrats might see nothing wrong with his actions. To me and many others, Obama was ducking his responsibility.

The US needs to know everything, not merely what the administration wants us to know.

To answer your question...until all the facts are made public, the hearings were NOT real.

\OK, if this super-duper, extra special hearing in December reaches the same conclusions as the previous 5 hearings on this very same topic, would that be enough to satisfy you? Somehow I don't think so.

And by the way, everyone knows what Benghazi is really about 2016 politics. Specifically about tarnishing Hillary Clinton's image with democrat leaning independents. Which is fine with me, because I don't intend to vote for her and don't think she and her husband should be back in the White House. But let's not try and pretend this 'scandal' is about the four people that died. You know I'm right about this, even if you won't admit it.

I will accept whatever decision is made if the upcoming Special Committee on Benghazi is run as I think it will be.

I have spent quite a bit of time watching the Chairman, Rep.Trey Gowdy, in operation. He is a 20 year federal prosecutor and handles himself very well. You might want to take a little time and get on YouTube to watch him in action. I am not easily impressed by any politician and he has sold me.

As far as an effort to tarnish Hillary is concerned...she already has more baggage to carry around than a red cap at JFK International. The only thing that might come out of this on her is the lack of adequate security provided the Consulate in Benghazi and having Ambassador Stevens there on 9/11.

That's rather an auspicious date to have an Ambassador at an unprotected Consulate when the US was the only western country that still had a presence in Benghazi. It will hardly tarnish her reputation as a SecState. Her entire tenure was one of failure.

[Publicus]

I didn't know that Jonathan Gruber was a Fox News employee.

Interestingly enough, he was never a White House employee either. He was a paid consultant who visited the White House about 2 times per year. So much for being the "architect".

It appears the Washington Times thinks he was the Obamacare architect vs you who don't? Who ya going to trust?

Jonathan Gruber, Obamacare architect, fired as Vermont adviser.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/20/jonathan-gruber-obamacare-architect-fired-as-vermo/

The Washington Times is indeed a newspaper and that is a fact that intimidates absolutely no one.

It is also fact that the Washington Times is right of center which also fails to intimidate anyone here.

Trying to throw newspapers or news organizations into the face of posters as authoritative against a lowly single poster is laughable.

So I think I'll go ahead to have a good one ....

Kindly do reply cause I have the big mighty and awesome New York Times ready to roll against li'l ol' you.

[Publicus]

You do know that most of the government employees and contractors that were present in Benghazi during the attack were never interviewed by the Inspector General or by Congress?

I think it is high time the truth came out about what actually happened and who did what and why.

We know Obama was briefed in the White House around 1700-1730 while the attack was going on. He told Leon Panetta and Gen. Dempsey to do "whatever it takes" to assist the Benghazi people then proceeded to go upstairs to the Presidential quarters and was not heard from again nor did he offer any further input.

Obama was not seen again until the following morning when he departed the White House for a fund raising trip to Las Vegas. He was and is the Commander in Chief and his prime duty should have been to insure that everything was being done to secure the safety of his people.

You and most Democrats might see nothing wrong with his actions. To me and many others, Obama was ducking his responsibility.

The US needs to know everything, not merely what the administration wants us to know.

To answer your question...until all the facts are made public, the hearings were NOT real.

\OK, if this super-duper, extra special hearing in December reaches the same conclusions as the previous 5 hearings on this very same topic, would that be enough to satisfy you? Somehow I don't think so.

And by the way, everyone knows what Benghazi is really about 2016 politics. Specifically about tarnishing Hillary Clinton's image with democrat leaning independents. Which is fine with me, because I don't intend to vote for her and don't think she and her husband should be back in the White House. But let's not try and pretend this 'scandal' is about the four people that died. You know I'm right about this, even if you won't admit it.

I will accept whatever decision is made if the upcoming Special Committee on Benghazi is run as I think it will be.

I have spent quite a bit of time watching the Chairman, Rep.Trey Gowdy, in operation. He is a 20 year federal prosecutor and handles himself very well. You might want to take a little time and get on YouTube to watch him in action. I am not easily impressed by any politician and he has sold me.

As far as an effort to tarnish Hillary is concerned...she already has more baggage to carry around than a red cap at JFK International. The only thing that might come out of this on her is the lack of adequate security provided the Consulate in Benghazi and having Ambassador Stevens there on 9/11.

That's rather an auspicious date to have an Ambassador at an unprotected Consulate when the US was the only western country that still had a presence in Benghazi. It will hardly tarnish her reputation as a SecState. Her entire tenure was one of failure.

I will accept whatever decision is made if the upcoming Special Committee on Benghazi is run as I think it will be.

At first glance I'd thought the statement was a prevarication. Now however I see that it doesn't even rise to the level of prevarication, that it is instead a straight out waffle.

It says very clearly that you'd accept the findings of the super-duper new old investigating inquisition committee if it suits your own already firm fantasies conclusions.

Sorry, no sale on that one.

[thaibeachlovers]

The real House investigation into Benghazi is set to kick off in earnest around 5 December.

Actually, now that I think about it, it's not funny.

I could be wrong, but I think there have been at least 5 house "investigations" into what happened in Benghazi, and they all turned up nothing which incriminates the White House.

After countless millions of dollars and thousands of man hours spent which could have been used to pass meaningful legislation to help the American people, and now you say that those investigations somehow weren't real?

So if they weren't real, then what were they?

You do know that most of the government employees and contractors that were present in Benghazi during the attack were never interviewed by the Inspector General or by Congress?

I think it is high time the truth came out about what actually happened and who did what and why.

We know Obama was briefed in the White House around 1700-1730 while the attack was going on. He told Leon Panetta and Gen. Dempsey to do "whatever it takes" to assist the Benghazi people then proceeded to go upstairs to the Presidential quarters and was not heard from again nor did he offer any further input.

Obama was not seen again until the following morning when he departed the White House for a fund raising trip to Las Vegas. He was and is the Commander in Chief and his prime duty should have been to insure that everything was being done to secure the safety of his people.

You and most Democrats might see nothing wrong with his actions. To me and many others, Obama was ducking his responsibility.

The US needs to know everything, not merely what the administration wants us to know.

To answer your question...until all the facts are made public, the hearings were NOT real.

\OK, if this super-duper, extra special hearing in December reaches the same conclusions as the previous 5 hearings on this very same topic, would that be enough to satisfy you? Somehow I don't think so.

And by the way, everyone knows what Benghazi is really about 2016 politics. Specifically about tarnishing Hillary Clinton's image with democrat leaning independents. Which is fine with me, because I don't intend to vote for her and don't think she and her husband should be back in the White House. But let's not try and pretend this 'scandal' is about the four people that died. You know I'm right about this, even if you won't admit it.

Hillary, the one that lied about being "under fire"?

She deserves to lose just for that.

[Ulysses G.]

It says very clearly that you'd accept the findings of the super-duper new old investigating inquisition committee if it suits your own already firm fantasies conclusions.

I don't believe that OJ Simpson was innocent - even though the court said he was - and nothing I have seen so far convinces me that Barack Obama and Hilliary Clinton did not know they were lying when they blamed Benghazi on a YouTube video and repeated it for weeks (the intelligence community says they knew that was absolute BS within hours of the attack).

Edited November 23, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

It says very clearly that you'd accept the findings of the super-duper new old investigating inquisition committee if it suits your own already firm fantasies conclusions.

I don't believe that OJ Simpson was innocent - even though the court said he was - and nothing I have seen so far convinces me that Barack Obama and Hilliary Clinton did not know they were lying when they blamed Benghazi on a YouTube video and repeated it for weeks (the intelligence community says they knew that was absolute BS within hours of the attack).

The House Intelligence Committee controlled and run by the Republican majority in the chamber does nonetheless have to be reasonably balanced and objective towards the intelligence communities, both the civilian ones and the military ones.

The Committee just issued its findings of its inquiry into the Benghazi developments and found no failures across the board, saying no one could have stopped the terrible and tragic sequence of events that occurred, to include the death of Amb Christopher Stephens.

This runs directly counter to extremist rightwing fantasies and fictions that are long and dearly held, and which will continue to persist until after the next election in November 2016 when the fantasies and the fictions of Benghazi will finally be laid to rest.

Republican-led report debunks Benghazi theories and accusations

An investigative report prepared by the House Intelligence Committee finds little to support questions raised about CIA actions on the ground in Benghazi, Libya, the night of a deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound.

The final report, from Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, and ranking member Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland, concludes there was no intelligence failure prior to the attack, no stand-down order to CIA operatives trying to go assist at the besieged consular building and found conflicting intelligence in the wake of the attack about the motive and cause, which were reflected in early public comments by the administration.

But the investigation also found the security at the diplomatic outpost was weak and it described a "flawed" process used to create talking points for House Intelligence Committee members and then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, whose public statements after the attack incensed critics who said the administration was avoiding calling the attack terrorism.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/politics/benghazi-attack-report/

[Ulysses G.]

But the investigation also found the security at the diplomatic outpost was weak and it described a "flawed" process used to create talking points for House Intelligence Committee members and then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, whose public statements after the attack incensed critics who said the administration was avoiding calling the attack terrorism.

As long as "a flawed process" means telling blatant lies, we are in agreement. It was known almost right away that Benghazi was a terrorist attack - not an escalation of a peaceful protest - yet the Obama administration continued to claim otherwise.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

But the investigation also found the security at the diplomatic outpost was weak and it described a "flawed" process used to create talking points for House Intelligence Committee members and then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, whose public statements after the attack incensed critics who said the administration was avoiding calling the attack terrorism.

As long as "a flawed process" means telling blatant lies, we are in agreement.

Um, who exactly would "we" be..... There sometimes is a common 'us' but frankly speaking I wouldn't go much beyond that.

Only the fringe right hears far away voices about Benghazi and many other issues besides.

The House Intelligence Committee report of its findings of Benghazi facts did not find any liars. It instead found conflicting initial intelligence reports which helped no one in the first 24 hours after the terrible tragedy.

Fantasies and fiction from the far right notwithstanding.

[Ulysses G.]

But the investigation also found the security at the diplomatic outpost was weak and it described a "flawed" process used to create talking points for House Intelligence Committee members and then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, whose public statements after the attack incensed critics who said the administration was avoiding calling the attack terrorism.

As long as "a flawed process" means telling blatant lies, we are in agreement.

Um, who exactly would "we" be...

The House Intelligence Committee - who described a "flawed" process used to create talking points - and me, obviously. Nothing to do with ultra-partisan posters who rant and rave about "right wingnuts" on a frequent basis.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[hawker9000]

I didn't know that Jonathan Gruber was a Fox News employee.

Interestingly enough, he was never a White House employee either. He was a paid consultant who visited the White House about 2 times per year. So much for being the "architect".

So I guess that works out to what...about $3Mil per visit? Not bad work if you can get it, eh?

And where would one naturally go looking for such work hornswoggling the American public? Hmmm.

[metisdead]

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed:

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

[JDGRUEN]

But the investigation also found the security at the diplomatic outpost was weak and it described a "flawed" process used to create talking points for House Intelligence Committee members and then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, whose public statements after the attack incensed critics who said the administration was avoiding calling the attack terrorism.

As long as "a flawed process" means telling blatant lies, we are in agreement.

Um, who exactly would "we" be..... There sometimes is a common 'us' but frankly speaking I wouldn't go much beyond that.

Only the fringe right hears far away voices about Benghazi and many other issues besides.

The House Intelligence Committee report of its findings of Benghazi facts did not find any liars. It instead found conflicting initial intelligence reports which helped no one in the first 24 hours after the terrible tragedy.

Fantasies and fiction from the far right notwithstanding.

Successfully hiding the facts of Benghazi behind a 'Bodyguard of Lies' ...and coercion of witnesses does not the truth make.

Edited November 27, 2014 by JDGRUEN

[JDGRUEN]

Well - looks like obama's love for his prime hoped for 'Legacy' legislation is not shared by Democrat Senator Schumer. Who being a hard core politician is looking out for this job - not obama's Legacy. Schumer is in my book a distasteful jerk - but his is not stupid. Schumer knows that two more years of watching obamacare fail and likely collapse just before the 2016 elections is no way to win and election. There are some CLASSIC Republican talking points on obamacare used by Schumer in this article - quite amazing actually...

Top Democrat sets off intraparty fury after saying Obamacare passage was a ‘mistake’

Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-New York):

“The plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships caused by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed,” he added. “But it wasn’t the change we were hired to make. Americans were crying out for an end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs — not for changes in their health care.”

http://fusion.net/story/30263/chuck-schumer-obamacare-comments-aca/

[hawker9000]

Well - looks like obama's love for his prime hoped for 'Legacy' legislation is not shared by Democrat Senator Schumer. Who being a hard core politician is looking out for this job - not obama's Legacy. Schumer is in my book a distasteful jerk - but his is not stupid. Schumer knows that two more years of watching obamacare fail and likely collapse just before the 2016 elections is no way to win and election. There are some CLASSIC Republican talking points on obamacare used by Schumer in this article - quite amazing actually...

Top Democrat sets off intraparty fury after saying Obamacare passage was a mistake

Sen. Chuck Schumers (D-New York):

The plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships caused by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed, he added. But it wasnt the change we were hired to make. Americans were crying out for an end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs not for changes in their health care.

http://fusion.net/story/30263/chuck-schumer-obamacare-comments-aca/

Rats know a sinking ship when it begins submerging around them...

[Chicog]

“The plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships caused by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed,” he added. “But it wasn’t the change we were hired to make. Americans were crying out for an end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs — not for changes in their health care.”

The US economy continues to grow, not recede, jobs are on the increase, and wages are on the rise.

So here's a politician who is riding the wave of fake news.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the Koch brothers are calling in their chits to make sure they get what they paid for, when various tax breaks get renewed.

It's business as usual and the snouts are ready to dive back into the trough. To the tune of $440 Billion in corporate favours over the few years. More "trickle down" economics?

And to think that the Republicans are the party that want to cut the deficit (which has been shrinking quite nicely without their help).

Kochs target Republicans on tax breaks

By BRIAN FALER

11/12/14 5:41 PM EST

Powerful conservative groups including those backed by the Koch Brothers are pushing Republicans to take a hard line on a raft of expired tax breaks pending in the lame duck, an effort that could jeopardize party leaders’ hopes for a low-drama Congress.

Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, Heritage Action for America and others want Republicans to capitalize on their election victory by killing some of the tax “extenders” they’ve long hated, such as a one subsidizing the wind energy industry.

Story Continued Below

Americans for Prosperity said it will spend $200,000 targeting 25 House Republicans on the wind issue. Among them: Reps. Gus Bilirakis (Fla.), Larry Bucshon (Ind.), Renee Ellmers (N.C.) and Michael Turner (Ohio).

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/lame-duck-congress-tax-breaks-112834.html#ixzz3KGrl03MN

Still, someone has to screw the poor at Christmas, it's a tradition.

[Ulysses G.]

Oh NO. The Koch brothers - the liberal's version of boogie men - a much better subject than acknowledging Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer's critical remarks on Obamacare.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[snarky66]

Seems to me Obama has trashed his own legacy by continual lying. Not to mention his continual race baiting and failure to enforce the laws of the United States.

[Chicog]

Oh NO. The Koch brothers - the liberal's version of boogie men - a much better subject than acknowledging Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer's critical remarks on Obamacare.

I posted links that rubbish his comments. Perhaps you missed them?

[chuckd]

Oh NO. The Koch brothers - the liberal's version of boogie men - a much better subject than acknowledging Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer's critical remarks on Obamacare.

I posted links that rubbish his comments. Perhaps you missed them?

The Democrat liberal to the Koch brothers is one Tom Steyer, San Francisco billionaire.

He spent some eleven times more money trying to get Democrats elected than the Koch brothers in the last election.

Most labor unions spent more than they did.

Steyer is even more dangerous than the brothers. He is a green agenda fanatic.

You need to stop reading Harry Reid's press releases and catch up on who is buying what.

[JDGRUEN]

I notice the distinct absence of a prolific poster who would normally be expected to post 7 pages in protest if a Republican had said what Schumer rattled off about the dumb idea of pushing obamacare... I guess it is a bit difficult for one Leftist to bash Another...

[Chicog]

Oh NO. The Koch brothers - the liberal's version of boogie men - a much better subject than acknowledging Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer's critical remarks on Obamacare.

I posted links that rubbish his comments. Perhaps you missed them?

The Democrat liberal to the Koch brothers is one Tom Steyer, San Francisco billionaire.

He spent some eleven times more money trying to get Democrats elected than the Koch brothers in the last election.

Most labor unions spent more than they did.

Steyer is even more dangerous than the brothers. He is a green agenda fanatic.

You need to stop reading Harry Reid's press releases and catch up on who is buying what.

Two wrongs don't make a right though, do they Chuck?

[Chicog]

Interesting, I just went to look at a Forbes article on Steyer and it appears to have been hacked by the Syrian Electronic Army.

[Chicog]

Yep!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/syrian-electronic-army-claims-hack-of-news-sites-including-cbc-1.2851962

http://en.webrazzi.com/2014/11/27/syrian-electronic-army-hacked-gigya/

[snarky66]

Ironically Steyer made his money in the coal industry. The heiress to the Stryker fortune is another liberal tree hugging whack job. Her name is Pat and she likes to buy elections here in Colorado. Despicable.

[CMNightRider]

“The plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships caused by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed,” he added. “But it wasn’t the change we were hired to make. Americans were crying out for an end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs — not for changes in their health care.”

The US economy continues to grow, not recede, jobs are on the increase, and wages are on the rise.

So here's a politician who is riding the wave of fake news.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the Koch brothers are calling in their chits to make sure they get what they paid for, when various tax breaks get renewed.

It's business as usual and the snouts are ready to dive back into the trough. To the tune of $440 Billion in corporate favours over the few years. More "trickle down" economics?

And to think that the Republicans are the party that want to cut the deficit (which has been shrinking quite nicely without their help).

Kochs target Republicans on tax breaks

By BRIAN FALER

11/12/14 5:41 PM EST

Powerful conservative groups including those backed by the Koch Brothers are pushing Republicans to take a hard line on a raft of expired tax breaks pending in the lame duck, an effort that could jeopardize party leaders’ hopes for a low-drama Congress.

Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, Heritage Action for America and others want Republicans to capitalize on their election victory by killing some of the tax “extenders” they’ve long hated, such as a one subsidizing the wind energy industry.

Story Continued Below

Americans for Prosperity said it will spend $200,000 targeting 25 House Republicans on the wind issue. Among them: Reps. Gus Bilirakis (Fla.), Larry Bucshon (Ind.), Renee Ellmers (N.C.) and Michael Turner (Ohio).

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/lame-duck-congress-tax-breaks-112834.html#ixzz3KGrl03MN

Still, someone has to screw the poor at Christmas, it's a tradition.

Who is screwing poor people?

[Chicog]

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347681/-GOP-payback-to-white-working-class-who-voted-them-in-cut-earned-income-tax-and-child-tax-credit