Who will Obama endorse as his successor?

Quotation marks designate a quotation. You enclosed your fraudulent attribution via quotation marks: "im 1/1000000 an indian"

I do not continually monitor the entire spectrum of broadcast radio, but it's safe to say, no, it's not.

I made no assumptions concerning your being in thrall to Willard or anyone else. Most TP types seem to prefer media entertainers to actual politicians, but that's your business, of course.
I did correctly note that Willard had increasing government fees by hundreds of millions of dollars, and departed his sole stint in governance with a 39% approval rating.

I shall add that his individual-mandated universal health coverage scheme, RomneyCare, was his principle political achievement.

 

Do you honestly think I actually care what a left thinks? So even though you dont live here you apparently know what being broadcast on the radio. YOu can always listen to the leftists radio stations here on something called the "Internet"
HERE WE GO.......You answer to the forum whether or not Warren ever checked off she was a native american. Its a yes or no. Ill wait.

 

There you go! Smearing the reformed randwanker before he has even thrown his tin hat into the ring!

​

.

"No, I couldn't carry my home state or even my home town, but nether could this goof!"​

 

Thought processes seem quite foreign to you generally, and, believe me, the airwaves are not glutted with talk of Governor Patrick
despite what you think you're hearing.

Yes, Elizabeth Warren had, indeed, stated that she had been told by her mother that she had Native American ancestry. To the best of my knowledge, the family tale has never been either confirmed or discredited. Undocumented claims of Native American ancestry, especially those based on family lore, are not uncommon in this country, especially in Oklahoma where she grew up. If you believe she was elected in Massachusetts because of her pedigree, I think you are wrong.

 

You didnt answer the question. Family lore is one thing claiming you are a minority to gain advantages over others is another. Now I believe I asked you if she ever checked a box saying she was a native American. Its a YES or NO. Keep in mind I listened to her speak on this issue here on those radio station you say dont talk about these things. We have it on audio. So please answer, then justify why you think thats ok

 

If she believed her mother, she certainly might well have done in good faith. Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried, a conservative, said that any suggestion that Warren enjoyed an affirmative action advantage in her hiring as a full professor is "false," so it's hard to pretend there is any significance in the matter.

(Incidentally, there is genealogical evidence that Warren's great-great-great grandmother had listed herself as Cherokee in an 1894 document, for anyone interested.)

 

The problem with this is that once in that 'life', you treat certain things differently, you have a skewed viewpoint. If any president is teaching his successor 'how to do it', then we don't get the chance of improving anything in any way because the status quo will be taught. In some cases, this is okay, but not for the highest office. I'd rather see more fresh blood there than chums and associates take the seat at this point.

 

you didnt answer the question ...remember three strikes and your out. According to you we can all check off minorities now to get jobs and get into schools....why my great great great grannpappy...jedadiah once told my second cousin
Hilarious. Lefties are incapable of admitting what is blatantly obvious... dude she lied in order to gain unfair advantage. If shes a native american then I can be black and check off as such right without any problem right....The answer is no I cant

 

No, I never said that, nor did Warren do that. Why do you need to make such things up?

If you wish to post such falsehoods, 1) quote where I said "we can all check off minorities now to get jobs and get into schools" and 2) provide a link to anyone whoever hired Warren indicating that they did so because they thought she was a Native American.

The best way to flush out fabricators is to simply call them out and request they document their ravings. When they cannot back up their accusations, they either slither away like rats or indulge in vapid bluster to duck actually confronting the matter honestly. Which form of avoidance will you take?


As for the thread's topic, yes, the President will discuss if, how, when, and where he will endorse his successor. The endorsement of the last Republican president will not be sought, any more than it was by McCain or Romney, by whomever the GOP nominates, an awkward situation if that should be Jebby Bush.



.

 

Absolutely. Because.....

Michelle is the double whammy.

Vote against her, you're not just labeled "racist" again this time around... but also "sexist".


A black, female celebrity, by default, has all you need to be for the left to consider you "qualified".

 

I honestly can't see a difference....

 

........

I agree he should. I just hope he doesn't.
If he runs, the President is obligated to support him.
If he doesn't it just makes his own decision to put Biden in the VP slot, in the first place, look like a failure.

Plus, I can't wait for the primaries when Hillary let's out the things she knows, as she falls back into the anti-Obama mode she was in the first time she ran. Back when they hated each other.... which was before they suddenly loved each other...

Watching those 2 clowns unleash with all the failures on both their sides, will be fun.


Regardless...
Hillary runs = Hillary wins.
Celeb/color/gender over character/ability, for the left.
As we all know.

 

You make the well reasoned argument that I was trying to draw from the participants of this discussion.

Basically, your argument is principled on the assumption that we still do not know what all the government is responsible for doing for a society, which is where they were in 1787, when they drew-up the Constitution for a fledgling society that did not have the array of organized knowledge that we have now. It is ridiculous to defend the Constitution as being adequate for the modern society, and that it will be adequate for the future as we approach a robot served society - it is just plain ridiculous.

There is only one way to change Washington, and that is by changing the Constitution - why I am the only ordinary citizen who is capable of recognizing that is reflective of how dull everyone else is.

 

Exactly. And we already went through this without much discussion with Dick Cheney - he declined not to run. I was not as astute in the evolution of the government then, as I am now - my apologies to all my followers.

I will not allow Hillary to win, because she has to explain why the Secretary of State cannot help the foreign countries in drafting reliable constitutions; and she cannot do so, and it will become more apparent that her participation in the Benghazi scandal causes too much distrust.

Hillary's campaign is going to be that she knows how to fix ObamaCare - the question is then, why does she have to be president, why can't she lay out the plan now, so we the people can review it now, and get it going now??? If we wait until the election cycle then we want to review her opponent's plan, as well - right? Why do we have to wait until they are in office???

 

I look forward to the "Obamacare failure" she will be running on... and the Benghazi revelations that will come out from her against Obama, and from Biden against her.

Will be a good time to watch as a (very distant) outsider... popcorn in hand.

 

To some folks, all goobers look alike.

 

Three strikes.......yerr outta there. Have a nice day. coach is buying us pizza

 

Yes, it's probably time some folks found a substitute for that 'Romney Landslide!" as something to look forward to.

 

.......yerr outta there.

Your decision to slither away rather than indulge in vapid bluster is the lesser of two weevils.

When you are called to account for statements you are unable to support, it's better not to compound the exposure.

 

Although that sets up a genuine situation for George W to suggest that there needs to be a new constitution in order to make a sincere endorsement. From GWB's perspective of being a corporate administrator he posses the ultimate know-it-all of the federal government - Romney has similar experience. These guys are comfortable with reorganizing large organizations of people to make the whole conglomerate more efficient; which is something we should be desirous of the federal government, but for some reason the smartest of the ordinary people cannot get to that level of understanding. The ordinary citizens insist that the 1787 Constitution is adequate for organizing a modern society.

 

Who will O support as successor?

Well, in order to keep the agenda on track maybe this little guy:



But more than likely this little guy:

 

I wonder if the GOP will ever allow Junior Bush to show his face on the campaign trail or publicly endorse any candidate - other that a Democrat, of course.

Maybe he'll be forced out of the Republican dog house when they shove Christie in.

 

I think a parliament is a superior system . I think money is exacerbating the shortcomings of our constitution.

 

Facts are on my side she did it and even admitted it. All I want is for you to type it out. You refused three times. Tis not I that slithered.