Serious question about Obama hatred

[bhsmte]

No, there WAS a trial on the two charges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

And he may not have been convicted, but it was widely known that he disgraced the office and other countries (as well as the American People) could no longer trust him. Remember, Clinton believed that truth was only defined by what "IS" is. Good thing his term of office was just about up. He was a lame duck.

I was mistaken, you are correct.

 

[Tallguy88]

No, there WAS a trial on the two charges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

And he may not have been convicted, but it was widely known that he disgraced the office and other countries (as well as the American People) could no longer trust him. Remember, Clinton believed that truth was only defined by what "IS" is. Good thing his term of office was just about up. He was a lame duck.

Clinton, a lame duck? Pull the other one! :rofl:

 

[AMDG]

Clinton, a lame duck? Pull the other one! :rofl:

Well, let's put it this way, would YOU trust someone that you knew wasn't trustworthy (he didn't know what it meant to be truthful and thought truth was just a matter of what "IS" is?)

It's rather like what Obama is now that he's got that "Lie of the year" award. Doesn't quite have the "gravitas" that he once had.

 

[Tallguy88]

Well, let's put it this way, would YOU trust someone that you knew wasn't trustworthy (he didn't know what it meant to be truthful and thought truth was just a matter of what "IS" is?)

It's rather like what Obama is now that he's got that "Lie of the year" award. Doesn't quite have the "gravitas" that he once had.

There went the goalposts. What does trustworthiness have to do with whether or not Clinton was a lame duck?

 

[isleof]

Disclosure/ as my posts will show, I'm a liberal. However I am NOT trying to start a debate or fight here. Rather, I would like to hear a reasonable explanation of why the hatred of Obama by some conservatives is so epic. I know that the left often ascribes it to prejudice, which I doubt is the only reason. Also the hatred was
Through the roof well before Obamacare, and abortion existed
Before Obama. I didn't like Bush but i never believed he was a minion of satan. Why is this? And please
Be charitable as I have tried to be. Thanks.

Do people hate Obama, or does Obama hate the people?

Let the need of the people be greater. Government wasn't made to please itself, government was made to serve the people. When the people suffer, government has failed.

Sorry Kennedy, claiming that people need to stand up for their government is failure. Government was designed to help the people. If a government is rich and the people are poor, that government has failed and is to blame for all the failures of that nation. All of those afflicted by your lie will rejoice when the greedy fall.

 

[AMDG]

There went the goalposts. What does trustworthiness have to do with whether or not Clinton was a lame duck?

A lame duck is one that has been compromised to such an extent as to make it near impossible to do his job correctly. We often use the expression when we speak of a political figure (or even Congress) that must fulfill their term in office, but WILL NOT be returning to that office.

The office of President is one of trust. If the President cannot be trusted, he is compromised even as he must finish out his term.

 

[Tallguy88]

A lame duck is one that has been compromised to such an extent as to make it near impossible to do his job correctly. We often use the expression when we speak of a political figure (or even Congress) that must fulfill their term in office, but WILL NOT be returning to that office.

The office of President is one of trust. If the President cannot be trusted, he is compromised even as he must finish out his term.

I trust all politicians about the same: not much. Obama and Clinton are no less trustworthy than Bush, Gingrich, or Santorum.

 

[mark46]

The choice among politicians is not about trust; it is about what they do in office. For me, I greatly prefer the 8 years of Clinton to the 8 years of Bush to the 5 years of Obama.

For me, running a country is not about marital infidelity. Else, Kennedy and Roosevelt might be considered two of our worst presidents and Carter and Nixon two of our best. For me, the results of the Reagan and Clinton administrations are decidedly different from those of Bush and Obama.

So, sure, I don't trust politicians. I find that fact somewhat irrelevant. To put it another way, that is a given. We then must choose which candidates to give the power to. Personally, I think that the choices it makes a great deal of differences in lots of areas of our life.

I trust all politicians about the same: not much. Obama and Clinton are no less trustworthy than Bush, Gingrich, or Santorum.

 

[bhsmte]

The choice among politicians is not about trust; it is about what they do in office. For me, I greatly prefer the 8 years of Clinton to the 8 years of Bush to the 5 years of Obama.

For me, running a country is not about marital infidelity. Else, Kennedy and Roosevelt might be considered two of our worst presidents and Carter and Nixon two of our best. For me, the results of the Reagan and Clinton administrations are decidedly different from those of Bush and Obama.

So, sure, I don't trust politicians. I find that fact somewhat irrelevant. To put it another way, that is a given. We then must choose which candidates to give the power to. Personally, I think that the choices it makes a great deal of differences in lots of areas of our life.

Well said.

 

[AMDG]

snipped to portion addressed. Longer post above

For me, running a country is not about marital infidelity.

A few on the left tried to convince themselves that the Clinton business was just about "marital fidelity". (And of course most men at the time would view this as a marital fidelity issue with a "wink and a nod".) But the issue was not as superficial as that. There were actually four charges--2 perjury, 1 abusing his office, and yet another. Only two were actually tried. I don't think the one where a man abuses his authority to get sexual favors out of a lowly--much younger--intern with a self-esteem problem (sexual harassment) was one of them. (In fact I don't think I heard a peep out of the National Organization for Women, and surely they would have said something if he was being tried for that abuse.)

He may not have been thrown out of office, but everyone knew he was a liar.--the people here and all the countries he had dealings with. He couldn't be trusted. If he promised a country one thing, I'm sure the country would be wondering if Clinton would "follow through" and would be honorable since he could no longer be trusted to tell the truth (or even know it.) It just meant that all the things he might have done, he could no longer do, because of a lack of trust.

 

[mark46]

Bill Clinton lied about sexual favors that he received as president and governor.
For many, that would disqualify any results of his presidency. I understand that position. I simply reject it.

Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton was all unfaithful.

I do not ignore the results.

Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Bush were faithful to their spouses.
============

In the end, many consider this important in judging a candidate and a presidency. I do not.
=============

Should we really celebrate the Bush and Obama presidencies because they have been faithful to their wives, and haven't lied about sexual activity? Is that really the measure of a politician?
=============

We disagree. That's fine. I have live through many presidents from Truman onward. For me, the best two stand head and shoulders above the rest, because of the results under their presidencies" Reagan and Clinton.
===

BTW, the popularity ratings for Clinton in 2012 and today are instructive. Upon further reflection (after 25 years), the people think he did a pretty good job. It would be really good to go back to thinking about how long it would take to erase the debt through our budget surpluses.

snipped to portion addressed. Longer post above



A few on the left tried to convince themselves that the Clinton business was just about "marital fidelity". (And of course most men at the time would view this as a marital fidelity issue with a "wink and a nod".) But the issue was not as superficial as that. There were actually four charges--2 perjury, 1 abusing his office, and yet another. Only two were actually tried. I don't think the one where a man abuses his authority to get sexual favors out of a lowly--much younger--intern with a self-esteem problem (sexual harassment) was one of them. (In fact I don't think I heard a peep out of the National Organization for Women, and surely they would have said something if he was being tried for that abuse.)

He may not have been thrown out of office, but everyone knew he was a liar.--the people here and all the countries he had dealings with. He couldn't be trusted. If he promised a country one thing, I'm sure the country would be wondering if Clinton would "follow through" and would be honorable since he could no longer be trusted to tell the truth (or even know it.) It just meant that all the things he might have done, he could no longer do, because of a lack of trust.

 

[AMDG]

Snipped to portion addressed. Longer post above.

Bill Clinton lied about sexual favors that he received as president and governor.
For many, that would disqualify any results of his presidency. I understand that position. I simply reject it.

Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton was all unfaithful.

Again it's not about marital infidelity. What Clinton did was not marital infidelity. His was sexual abuse.

When a powerful man uses his power over a lowly girl (with self-esteem problems), it's abuse. It's not consensual.

If such a person thinks that it's fine to abuse one person, what makes you think that he doesn't think it's fine to abuse others? And Clinton knew what he did was wrong. He lied and in doing so he simply referred to Lewinsky as "that...that...woman". Wasn't an ounce of love shown. It may have seemed consensual, but it wasn't--it was abuse, sexual harassment that today's women's groups would call it.

Oh just so you know, I can actually name more presidents than you who were really simply unfaithful. Over time, from his being governor to his being president, Clinton was both unfaithful and abusive.

We disagree. That's fine. I have live through many presidents from Truman onward. For me, the best two stand head and shoulders above the rest, because of the results under their presidencies" Reagan and Clinton.

I too thought Reagan was excellent. (Since I wasn't Repub, that surprised me.) But I can still note Reagan's faults. But as to Clinton, if it wasn't for Gingrich calling Clinton's bluff and making Clinton act responsibly, we wouldn't HAVE any budget surplus plus wasn't it Clinton who let Ben Ladin get away until Ben Ladin finally succeeded in his attacking us just one year after Clinton left office? Clinton's lying and pretense really bothered me and in fact one could say that Clinton is the reason I'm no longer a Dem.

 

[LoAmmi]

When a powerful man uses his power over a lowly girl (with self-esteem problems), it's abuse. It's not consensual.

Did she ever claim it wasn't consensual? You are accusing someone of rape when the person you are casting as a victim didn't claim she didn't consent. You would basically be saying that anytime a person has sex with another person who is either lower on the totem pole of life or has self-esteem issues, it is rape EVEN if the person doesn't consider themselves raped.

No, I'm sorry, I reject that entirely.

 

[AMDG]

No I am not accusing him of rape. I am accusing him of sexual harassment with Monica Lewinsky. (The rape charge was another girl when he was governor.)

 

[LoAmmi]

No I am not accusing him of rape. I am accusing him of sexual harassment with Monica Lewinsky.

Did she say she was sexually harassed?

 

[bhsmte]

No I am not accusing him of rape. I am accusing him of sexual harassment with Monica Lewinsky. (The rape charge was another girl when he was governor.)

Maybe you have it backwards, maybe Monica sexually harassed him. I mean, she never had a dress cleaned from the occasion to keep as a souvenir. Doesn't sound like someone had to coax her.

 

[LoAmmi]

Maybe you have it backwards, maybe Monica sexually harassed him. I mean, she never had a dress cleaned from the occasion to keep as a souvenir. Doesn't sound like someone had to coax her.

Indeed. AMDG is setting a precedent that anytime a powerful person has sex with a less powerful person, it's either abuse or rape. Just for the record, sex without consent, which is what AMDG said it was, is rape. Playing with the words doesn't change what she is accusing the man of doing.

 

[mark46]

Reagan had his O'Neill. Clinton had his Gingritch. The government worked because they were able to work together for the good of the country. These speakers also had the loyalty of their house members. These presidents and speakers all had qualities that current office holders do not.

Clinton and Bush both ignored signs of the increased terrorist threat, and of Bin Ladin. The special fault of Bush is NOT that he started a "War On Terrorism". The special fault was all that he did to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of that cause. Nation-building was not a good idea. Understanding that terrorism has little to do with nation states, unless you taking about financing and support in which case we should have attacked Saudi Arabia.

None of our discussion has even suggested that the second war in Iraq was about fighting Al Qaeda or other terrorists. Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was about finishing Bush senior's war against Hussain.
======

The Afghan War has indeed been about fighting terrorists and their strongholds. There was nothing wrong with Bush's intent here. The problem was his belief that large number of occupying/liberating ground troops were the answer. The problem was that nation-building was not the answer.

In Afghanistan, we needed to greatly diminish the ability of Al Qaeda to be a direct danger to the US. We needed to kill Bin Ladin. This has been done. We did NOT need to try to build a US democracy in Afghanistan. All this being said, many people and groups have been helped in Afghanistan as a result of our presence. The situation is much different than in Iraq. The difference is that we did not destroy a country and its infrastructure. The Afghan people had little when we came; they have a bit more now. In the end, Al Qaeda is much stronger because of our involvement in Iraq. It is much weaker because of our involvement in Afghanistan. Its global structure and reach has been almost destroyed. Since that was our goal, we should celebrate some. However, the past and future cost to those in the region is unacceptable (surely to the Vatican).

I too thought Reagan was excellent. (Since I wasn't Repub, that surprised me.) But I can still note Reagan's faults. But as to Clinton, if it wasn't for Gingrich calling Clinton's bluff and making Clinton act responsibly, we wouldn't HAVE any budget surplus plus wasn't it Clinton who let Ben Ladin get away until Ben Ladin finally succeeded in his attacking us just one year after Clinton left office? Clinton's lying and pretense really bothered me and in fact one could say that Clinton is the reason I'm no longer a Dem.

 

[AMDG]

Maybe you have it backwards, maybe Monica sexually harassed him. I mean, she never had a dress cleaned from the occasion to keep as a souvenir. Doesn't sound like someone had to coax her.

Except that she wasn't the one with power. And yes, since she did have self-esteem problems, I would think she would be flattered that a powerful man took an interest in her so much that she would have saved the evidence. (She was probably thinking: "see? I am desirable afterall")

 

[AMDG]

Indeed. AMDG is setting a precedent that anytime a powerful person has sex with a less powerful person, it's either abuse or rape. Just for the record, sex without consent, which is what AMDG said it was, is rape. Playing with the words doesn't change what she is accusing the man of doing.

It's not just AMDG. Check with your women's abuse centers. (I mentioned that I was surprised that NOW wasn't "all over this".)

Odd, your business must not have the "women's sensitivity programs". My husband had to even help arrange them back before he retired.

And when the young girl is flattered by the older more powerful man (and has self-esteem problems) it can SEEM as if she gave consent, but her "consent" was compromised and not "freely given"--same as if a girl was drinking and lost her inhibitions that way. It's abuse when either happens. Normally it's not termed "rape" because there wasn't a "no".