#they could have had so many reporter threads throughout this series and they made mr poe’s WIFE the main snappy reporter ? hurts me 😭

[snckt]

she comes highly recommended.

happy secretary’s day!

[patriotsnet]

What Did Obama Say About Republicans

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-did-obama-say-about-republicans/

What Did Obama Say About Republicans

Etymology Of Obama Republican

Fmr. President Obama Mocks Trump’s Middle-Class Tax Cut: âCongress Isnât Even In Sessionâ | NBC News

On February 12, 2008, Barack Obama mentioned Obama Republicans in his Potomac primary victory speech: “We are bringing together Democrats and independents, and yes, some Republicans. I know there’sI meet them when I’m shaking hands afterwards. There’s one right there. An Obamacan, that’s what we call them.” In another speech, he said, “We, as Democrats right now, should tap into the discontent of Republicans. I want some Obama Republicans!” In his call for Republican votes, Obama referred to Ronald Reagan, who he says “was able to tap into the discontent of the American people … to get Democrats to vote Republicanthey were called Reagan Democrats.”

RepublicansforObama.org was founded in December 2006 by John Martin, a US Navy reservist. The organization grew to include over 2,500 registered members from across the United States, and was featured in USA Today, The New Yorker and other media throughout the 2008 Presidential Campaign.

Republican And Conservative Support For Barack Obama In 2008

United StatesPresidentBarack Obama, a member of the Democratic Party, was endorsed or supported by some members of the Republican Party and by some political figures holding conservative views in the 2008 election. Although the vast majority of Obama’s support came from liberal constituencies, some conservatives identified in him shared priorities or other positive attributes. As in any election, voters can and sometimes do cross party lines to vote for the other party’s nominee. Republican and conservative Obama supporters were often referred to as “Obama Republicans“, “Obamacans” or “Obamacons“.

Republican and conservative supporters of Obama included elected officials, former elected officials, academics, commentators, and retired military officers. According to exit polls on Election Day, 9% of those who identified themselves as Republicans voted for Barack Obama, conflicting with polling data gathered by The Economist in October 2008 reporting 22% of conservatives favored Obama, up slightly from the 6% of self-identified Republicans who voted for John Kerry in 2004.

Moment Of Shame: Obama Calls On Republicans To Speak Out In Response To Us Capitol Violence

Former US President Barack Obama condemned the violence that took place at US Capitol on Wednesday and said history will remember the incident as one incited by the sitting President and it was a moment of great dishonour and shame for America.

Hundreds of Trump supporters entered the US Capitol in a bid to overturn his election defeat. The violence that followed led to the death of one woman. The Senate, which was disrupted in its process of certification of Biden as the winner in the November 3 election, resumed it soon after officials declared Capitol secure.

Heres my statement on todays violence at the Capitol, Obama tweeted.

Barack Obama

Read full statement:

History will rightly remember todays violence at the Capitol, incited by a sitting president who has continued to baselessly lie about the outcome of a lawful election, as a moment of great dishonor and shame for our nation. But wed be kidding ourselves if we treated it as a total surprise.

For two months now, a political party and its accompanying media ecosystem has too often been unwilling to tell their followers the truth – that this was not a particularly close election and that President-Elect Biden will be inaugurated on January 20. Their fantasy narrative has spiraled further and further from reality, and it builds upon years of sown resentments. Now were seeing the consequences, whipped up into a violent crescendo.

Read Also: Why Do Republicans Hate Planned Parenthood

Obama Says Republican Party Has Become Unrecognisable In Shift That Started With Palin

In this screengrab, Former president Barack Obama speaks during the Celebrating America Primetime Special on 20 January 2021

Expressing worry about Americas state of democracy, Barack Obama criticised the Republican party for being cowed into accepting positions that would be unrecognisable and unacceptable even five years or a decade ago.

In an interview with CNNs Anderson Cooper, the former president said when he left the White House, he thought there were enough institutional safeguards in place, including the Republican establishment.

He said he did not believe things would get this dark when Sarah Palin in 2008 brought the dark spirits such as xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, paranoid conspiracy theories, an antipathy toward Black and brown folks to the centre stage of the modern Republican Party.

I thought that there were enough guardrails institutionally that even after Trump was elected, he said.

The degree to which we did not see the Republican establishment say hold on, time out, not acceptable but rather be cowed into accepting positions that would be unrecognisable and unacceptable even five years ago or a decade ago…, Mr Obama said.

In his memoir, A Promised Land, Obama blamed Ms Palin for ushering a shift in the Republican party towards populist sentiment at its centre.

He, however, lauded some Republicans including Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger for being very brave and standing up to Mr Trump.

Read More

Ies Run Even On Key Issues

The Republican Party runs about even with the Democratic Party on three key issues: the economy, immigration and gun control. In recent years, neither political party has held a decisive advantage on these issues. The Democratic Party led on the economy through much of George W. Bushs second term and Obamas first year in office. But since 2010, about as many have favored the GOP as the Democrats.

Similarly, neither party has had a consistent advantage on dealing with immigration. The current survey finds opinion split evenly; Democrats held a slim advantage in late 2012, while Republicans held a slight edge in 2011.

And while the gun debate has drawn significant public attention over the past four months , it has not resulted in an advantage for either political party. In the immediate wake of the shootings in Newtown, Conn., Americans were divided over which party could better address gun control, and that divide persists today.

Independents are split over which party can do the better job on key issues. Overall, 38% of independents say the Republican Party could do the better job on the economy while nearly as many say the Democratic Party. Similarly, independents are divided over who can better address immigration and gun control . On all three issues, about a quarter of independents volunteer no preference between the two parties.

Recommended Reading: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

Obama: More Moderate Republican Than Socialist

The president rejected criticism from conservatives that he is a socialist.

Obama: I Would Be Considered Moderate Republican in the 80’s

During an interview with Noticias Univision 23, the network’s Miami affiliate newscast, Obama pushed back against the accusation made in some corners of south Florida’s Cuban-American and Venezuelan communities that he wants to instill a socialist economic system in the U.S. The president said he believes few actually believe that.

“I don’t know that there are a lot of Cubans or Venezuelans, Americans who believe that,” Obama said. “The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican.”

See Also:

Obama’s comments come amid the contentious debate over how to resolve the “fiscal cliff,” in which the White House and Congress are trying to figure out whether to extend a series of tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year while staving off steep spending cuts to domestic and defense programs set to go into place at the beginning of 2013.

For years amid the brooder debate over taxes and the size of government, Obama has been characterized by some on the right as a socialist who wants to redistribute wealth. They cite Obama’s healthcare law in particular as a massive increase in the size of government.

Michelle Obama Says Gop Is Willing To ‘tear Down Democracy’ Urges Dem Turnout In Georgia Runoffs

“We cant just vote for President and think that our job is done,” wrote Obama on Twitter

In a series of tweets published one day before Georgia’s Senate run-off election, former First Lady Michelle Obama urged voters to turn out, saying a vote for the Democratic candidates would be “another step toward cleaning up the mess of the past four years.”

The eight-tweet-long thread offered a strongly-worded rebuke of both;Donald Trump and the Republican Party in general, which Obama said had amplified the president’s false claims about election fraud while ignoring the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

“Your vote is your voice. Its your power. And right now, from the President of the United States on down, were seeing and hearing just how desperate some are to take that power away,” Obama wrote. “They want us to believe that their pride is more important than our democracy.”

She continued: “And this is just unconscionable at a time when a staggering number of Americans are dying every day from a virus that was downplayed for far too long. Its unconscionable to focus on overturning an election rather than helping struggling families or distributing a vaccine.”

RELATED: Michelle Obama Recalls Putting Her ‘Anger Aside’ for Transition of Power to Donald and Melania Trump

“These runoffs will decide whether President-Elect Biden has a Senate that will work with him rather than just obstruct him at every turn,” Obama continued.

You May Like: What Is The Lapel Pin Republicans Are Wearing

The Affordable Care Act

In 2013, Senator Ted Cruz responded to the question “Why Donât We Impeach ?” with “Good question… and Iâll tell you the simplest answer: To successfully impeach a president you need the votes in the U.S. Senate.” That year, when asked if Obama had committed impeachable offenses on immigration and health care, Cruz said the implementation of the Affordable Care Act was “lawless”, and said of impeachment, “Thatâs a question for the House ultimately… My responsibility would be to render judgment.”

Congressional Opposition To Impeachment

Republicans react to Obama’s success

A number of prominent Republicans rejected calls for impeachment, including House SpeakerJohn Boehner, and Sen. John McCain. McCain said impeachment would be a distraction from the 2014 election, and that if “we regain control of the United States Senate we can be far more effective than an effort to impeach the president, which has no chance of succeeding.” Rep. Blake Farenthold said that impeachment would be “an exercise in futility.”

Don’t Miss: How Many Republicans Are Now In The House Of Representatives

Ways Obama Tries To Work With Republicans And Is Rejected

To President Obamaâs critics, he will never bring about the era of bipartisan cooperation that he campaigned on in 2008, but the facts prove otherwise.

The presidentâs nomination of conservative Republican Chuck Hagel to his cabinet is just another example in a long line of Obamaâs attempts to reach across the aisle and work with a recalcitrant Republican minority. Here are a few other gems, as we highlight some of Obamaâs most bipartisan gestures of his first term and the Republican response.

1) Keeping Robert Gates as secretary of defense

In January, 2009: Obama is inaugurated and immediately seeks out Republican lawmakers willing to work with his new agenda. He makes it a point to maintain Robert Gates as his Secretary of Defense. Some Republicans on the Hill even whisper that Obama was working with them more than Bush ever did.

Republican response in January, 2009: Rush Limbaugh welcomes the president with a hearty âI hope he fails.”

2) Obama meets with pro-choice and pro-life advocates

In May, 2009: Obama begins the first of several sessions meeting with pro-choice advocates and their detractors in order to help design legislation that protects both the lives of women and the unborn.

3) Obama listens to Republicans on health care

4) Obama compromises on 2010 budget deal

5) Obama compromises on “fiscal cliff”

Public Debate Over Impeachment Demands

In terms of background, U.S. public opinion widely opposed efforts made to impeach previous Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. CNN Polling Director Keating Holland has stated that their organization found that 69% opposed impeaching President Bush in 2006.

According to a July 2014 YouGov poll, 35% of Americans believed President Obama should be impeached, including 68% of Republicans. Later that month, a CNN survey found that about two thirds of adult Americans disagreed with impeachment efforts. The data showed intense partisan divides, with 57% of Republicans supporting the efforts compared to only 35% of independents and 13% of Democrats.

On July 8, 2014, the former Governor of Alaska and 2008 RepublicanVice Presidential nomineeSarah Palin publicly called for Obama’s impeachment for “purposeful dereliction of duty”. In a full statement, she said: “Itâs time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment.”

Andrew McCarthy of the National Review wrote the book Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case For Obama’s Impeachment, which argued that threatening impeachment was a good way to limit executive action by Obama .

Also Check: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

Obama Explains His Remark About Punishing Enemies

After House Minority Leader John Boehner chided him for using the term “enemies”in a conversation last week with Univision Radio, President Obama offered an explication for his remark in an interview today with talk radio host Michael Baisden.

Following is Mr. Obama’s “enemies” quote from the Univision interview:

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us’ — if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election — then I think it’s going to be harder. And that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2nd.”

Here is what Boehner said about Mr. Obama’s use of the word “enemies” in prepared remarks for a speech Monday night.

Mr. Obama told Baisden that he should have used the word, “opponents,” rather than “enemies” . According to his language parsing, presumably some Republicans candidates are “opponents,” not “enemies,” of provisions, such as comprehensive immigration reform. Understood?

Obama: Gop Blocked 500 Bills

President Barack Obama is railing against congressional Republicans, telling a Hollywood crowd that the midterm elections are crucial because the GOP is willing to say no to everything.

The president, speaking at a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee event Wednesday evening hosted at Walt Disney Studios Chairman Alan Horns home, said Republicans have been obstructionist since even before he took office.

Their willingness to say no to everything the fact that since 2007, they have filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation that would help the middle class just gives you a sense of how opposed they are to any progress has actually led to an increase in cynicism and discouragement among the people who were counting on us to fight for them, Obama said of Republicans.

The conclusion is, well, nothing works, the president continued. And the problem is, is that for the folks worth fighting for for the person whos cleaning up that house or hotel, for the guy who used to work on construction but now has been laid off they need us. Not because they want a handout, but because they know that government can serve an important function in unleashing the power of our private sector.

Obama opened by saying that he is in trouble at home, because in 2012 he had told his wife, first lady Michelle Obama, that he had run his last campaign.

Also Check: Did Trump Call Republicans Stupid In 1998

Trump Says He Wants To Box Biden On 9/11

Former President Barack Obama said Republicans have been “cowed into accepting” a series of positions that “would be unrecognizable and unacceptable even five years ago or a decade ago,” telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper he is worried about the state of democracy in the United States in an exclusive interview that aired Monday.

Obama Says He’d Be Seen As Moderate Republican In 1980s

President Obama said his economic policies are “so mainstream” he’d be considered a moderate Republican in the 1980s.

In a Thursday interview with a Miami-based local television station, Obama said he thinks few people believe he wants to impose socialism on the country.

“I mean, what I believe in is a tax system that is fair,” he continued. “I don’t think government can solve every problem. I think that we should make sure that we’re helping young people go to school. We should make sure that our government is building good roads and bridges and hospitals and airports so that we have a good infrastructure.

“I do believe that it makes sense that everyone in America, as rich as this country is, shouldn’t go bankrupt because someone gets sick, so the things I believe in are essentially the same things your viewers believe in,” Obama said.

Conservatives frequently raise concern that Obama has turned the U.S. toward socialism, pointing to Obama’s healthcare law and the stimulus bill the president championed shortly after taking office.

After Obama won reelection, former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Fox News said his win would be catastrophic for the U.S. economy because “Obama’s socialist policies” will “destroy America’s working class as he outsources opportunities.”

“I don’t know that there are a lot of Cubans or Venezuelans, Americans who believe that,” Obama said.

Here’s a full transcript of the interview with Obama:

Don’t Miss: How Many Republicans And Democrats Are In The House

[bronsonthurman]

Google Employee’s Viral Letter: More Noise in a Cacophony of Echoes

(Text of the letter here.) Let’s get one, self-evident fact out of the way: we know there are real issues facing women in tech because women in tech say so. No one wants to be the squeaky wheel at work and there is no gain to be had by doing so; when there isn’t a problem, we will hear few complaints. While the same may not quite hold true for leadership, men can not claim any history of being any better at it. As women move into more positions of leadership we see the same variety of solid competence and flailing fakery as we have always seen in men; the Angela Merkels versus the Debbie Wassermans, for example, are no more or less prevalent than the George Washingtons versus the James Buchanans. People aren’t very good at leadership, period. Come to think of it, people aren’t very good at code either.

Another thing people aren’t really that good at is solid critique. Making and refuting claims with actual evidence is a ton of grueling work. Its much easier to make presumptions and let those you agree validate them, while dismissing those who don’t. All sides of every debate are guilty of this. Sure, someone could present an actual case of feminist participation in typical human fuzzy-think and self-service. But why do that when you can just respond in kind? Hell you can even pat yourself on the back because someone sent you a message of support--wow, you must be right, because someone else agrees!

Any vitriol you hear in this statement is as much self-loathing as anything else. I get it, sometimes you just have to speak up and unless your job is academic you won’t really have time to write a solid research paper. I’m proving that point with every word. I certainly experience dismay when I encounter sloppy feminist diatribes. But if I am going to embarrass myself by ranting, I’m not going to do so protecting a status quo that I can damn well see is wrong. I will go off half-cocked only for other men making me look bad by their sloppy chauvinist diatribes. Call it one bad turn deserves another if you like.

In his letter anonymous google employee cites the (presumably left leaning) echo chamber twice by the third paragraph. At the same time the letter sits firmly in its own (presumably right leaning) echo chamber. It asserts status quo cultural conditions as irrefutable biological facts. On that rocky foundation it posits efforts to change these conditions are artificial impositions on the natural. It decries a lack of evidence for what it opposes, but sees no need to provide evidence for what it supports. This does not mean every claim made is false, any more than the claims of the opposing echo chamber. It does mean the letter is just adding more noise to the cacophony of echoes.

That there are some biological differences between men and women is apparent, but any conclusions to draw from that are highly disputed. I have seen evidence both for and against genetic determinism, all of it well removed from the source and casually reported, just like whatever information the author drew on for his letter--which we can safely assume since he didn’t think his evidence worthy enough to share. The only conclusion worth drawing is that biology may or may not contribute to gender gaps and the debate demands a more solid body of evidence either way. Yet this Google employee blithely asserts that differences between men an women are “universal across human cultures.” This is a laughably indefensible claim just at home in sloppy feminist work as it is in this sloppy chauvinist work. History and geopolitics certainly offers considerable variation in gender formulation once corrected for the homogenizing influence of Western dominance. Are there certain trends across a wide range of cultures, like male dominance in politics and female dominance in family? Sure. Does that make the a case for biological causes that explain and justify female under representation in programming and leadership, even as women vocally clamor for these roles? No, no it doesn’t, at all, just as it fails to proves maleness to be the eternal source of all villainy.

The letter goes on to associate women with feelings, aesthetics, sociability, artistry, gregariousness, and agreeableness, and to deny them ideas and assertiveness. This shows a remarkable lack of historical knowledge. Indeed women’s capacity for all those attributes was once refuted by patriarchal artists and leaders, just as the author today refutes their capacity for “rational” attributes. Over time culture--yes culture--shifts in what it allows for different genders. The assignment of those attributes to women is no less specious and bigoted than the denial of the same to men.

The text swerves from biological determinism to political bias, u-turns back to restatement of its gender difference claims threaded through non-evidence based suggestions, detours complaints about Google’s bias and non-evidence based decisions, to “I am not sexist” disclaimers, and makes the occasional pit stop for a meaningful statement taken, incorrectly, as proof of the whole irrational rant. Surprise, lefties have bias! It might even affect the decision making around inclusivity policy. Whoah, not all differences are socially constructed? Surely then Google’s diversity programs must be wrong. Mr. Anonymous would have done better to confine himself to discussing the specifics of those programs and offer “concrete suggestions” that were in fact concrete, actionable proposals shown to contribute to “non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap.” Instead we get “stop alienating conservatives” and some points about why we should do that. I fully support not alienating everyone, but how do you do that when conservatives are only comfortable if disadvantaged groups stop trying to better their lots in life and instead just know their place? They alienate themselves by claiming an exclusive right to wield power in their own self-interest. Other even less concrete suggestions include “de-emphasize empathy” and “prioritize intention.” Some effort is made in the bullet points to add specifics, which in these cases amount to some dubious claims about the effects of empathy and a call to stop micro-aggression training. At least that last bit was specific, if not supported.

The purpose of the letter is not obvious, but it boils down to opposing diversity programs and training. It visits the reverse discrimination argument several times and makes reference to widely covered issues of college admission and hate speech. This conservative rationale is what gets my dander up, not least because it has a specious logic that requires some thought to see through. If we won’t discriminate against anyone on the basis of gender or race we shouldn’t discriminate against men or white, should we? This line of thinking discards a significant issue, that our culture at large already discriminates for men and whites, in particular at the level of Google. That this is a generalized truth with many specific deviations does not detract from it. The best anecdote I have involves a woman who hired a whole department of employees who shared her gender, race, hair color, hair length, and hair style. That this manager needed to examine her unconscious biases was particularly obvious; that this example points out a female does nothing to refute the need for white male dominated corporate America to affirmatively ensure they don’t unconsciously prefer people like themselves. From the top tier of candidates for a competitive position the final decision is going to be highly subjective. It’s not about unqualified minorities cheating to win; it’s about perfectly qualified minorities getting a shot they deserve as much as anyone else.

Throughout the letter a series of footnotes is included, not to cite sources or evidence, but to make additional room for more of the same, only even less focused, plus an occasional disclaimer or clarification. When the text mentions “veiled left ideology” it directs to a footnote expounding the failure of communism, as if disadvantaged groups trying to increase their presence in a temple of capitalism are secretly communist agents. There is one perfectly good, unattributed quote on rigid male gender roles; on its heels comes a straw man definition of political correctness presented as prove of authoritarianism. Here the author slips out of language carefully couched in appeals to openness and objectivity and we glimpse the most troubling aspect of this letter.

Somewhere, lost in the echoes of his own chamber, there is a human being struggling with sincere fears and alienation, as deserving of voice and sympathy as anyone else. Fear is rarely fully justified, but it is just as rarely baseless. I have sought legitimate men’s rights criticism and so far come up only with muddled alt-right nonsense like this, with the occasional fair point drowned out by unmerited conclusions, intransigent defenses of the status quo peppered with--but not supported by--the occasional just claim. There is a case to be made of male struggles: their gender is stuck in stereotypes and double-standards just as women liberate their own from the same. Affirmative action could well swing towards bigoted discrimination, though I wouldn’t claim that it has. Individuals of any class deserve equal opportunity regardless of the general state of equality, so the woman manager of a small non-profit shouldn’t prefer employees like herself any more than a male executive at a massive multinational conglomerate should. That some women inflict occasional injustices against men is not a surprising or revolutionary claim; women are human beings, people as perfectly capable of self-serving bigotry as anyone else. That their opportunity to do so rests on the shoulders of a movement to reject sexism does nothing to refute that movement. For too many years too many men used their opportunity in reprehensible manner; a rush to decry equal-opportunity bigotry would be premature, to say the least.

Maybe someday soon I will do the serious work and research needed to make this case, much as pioneering women did for their movement. Until then I will reserve my rants for sloppy, fuzzy-logic, alt-right nonsense like this Google employee offers.

Seriously men, just cut this bullshit. It’s embarrassing.