Wasserman Schultz stepping down

[Tekate]

Tekate, I also joined the work force in the 70's and experienced the very same things you did. I would never have dreamed of speaking up because I was supporting myself. I was also just 18 at the time.

___________________________________________
All that proves is then, like now, there were crappy bosses out there.

I had the opposite experience. I worked for an Insurance Agency. And yes I started as a secretary.

And as my skills grew they gave me more opportunities where I eventually became an underwriter.

Oh, I think the 70s allowed women to advance, but not too far, glad you became an underwriter, in order for me to advance and use my degree I had to jump companies a few times till I hit IBM and then I moved up the ranks quickly and IBM was a different world, where there were women managers, I loved it, till I left to have my kids, went back and then left and then worked for a non profit and then retired.. I feel very lucky that I was able to go from 1974 when I graduated from college and working in a horribly sexist environment, moving up to where I ended and was able to retire. As to the constant sexual harassment that ended when I became a manager.

Peace

 

[Demon]

Deb. I don't believe there were laws preventing women from wearing pants. I believe schools and jobs are able to make their own rules; just rules about attire. It used to be called convention. You had to show you were both respectful and a lady when you appeared In court.
_____________________________________

I went to Katharine Gibbs in the 1970s. It was a very proper business school for women.

It specialized in training young women to be in the business world and to dress for the most staid employer.

And we were allowed to wear pant suits.

There were no pants suits in the era of which I am speaking, ruby.

And if it was not the law, I do not know on what authority judges here in Connecticut forced female attorneys to wear skirts in court "back in the day", Annette. I would have thought that attorneys knew the law and would not have needed to bow to mere "convention". But I admit I am on shaky ground with this one. I have no hard evidence that there was a law. I am just speculating, which I actually know is worthless.

Am I the only one (besides Tekate) who remembers that women and girls had to wear only skirts; dresses; and jumpers (American jumpers); to school in the 1950's and early 1960's? At home we might wear jeans or corduroy pants or shorts, but at school it was absolutely forbidden. There were no school or dress garments with pants made for girls. The only choice for being dressy was whether to wear a hat and little white gloves, and the church one went to sometimes dictated whether one wore a hat on Sunday.

AGBF

Unfortunately, I'm old enough to remember. When I was in grade school, we had to wear dresses. When it was freezing cold and snowing out, we could wear pants, but- they had to be worn under a dress and had to be removed once inside the school. We didn't get to wear pants to school until I was in my junior year, possibly senior, in high school. And even then, we had to wear bell bottoms, no straight jeans. You were, (and I kid you not) according to the school, more likely to get in a fight if you wore straight pants. Absolute insanity. And dresses at that time were supposed to be no shorter than fingertip length, though they rarely were. I am so glad those days are over.

 

[Calliecake]

Deb, I also remember when girls were not allowed to wear pants to school. Living in the Midwest we wore snow pants to school in the winter that were removed once we got to school. I was so happy when we were allowed to actually wear pants in school. I believe that was around 1969 or 1970.

Ruby I also had a wonderful boss in the 70's. You are correct there were also good mangers too. I was 17 when I began working at the company and In today's world I can't imagine a 60 year old man patting a 17 yr old on the backside and getting away with it. The boss I worked for a year and a half later was one of the kindest most decent men I have ever known.

 

[AGBF]

I doubt anyone cared what we had on before the bell rang, but after the bell rang, it was different. I went to an all girls college prep school and the winter uniform was a grey wool skirt; navy blue knee socks; and Oxford tie shoes as well as the choice of a navy cardigan sweater and/or a grey wool blazer over one's white blouse. It was warm enough on top, but often a little cold around the knees in the snow.

AGBF

 

[Dancing Fire]

Hi.

What do you all make of her hiring Wasserman Schultz immediatley after her departure from the DNC. Does this woman have a tin ear?


Annette

Pay-back !..

This does seem quite strange for her to do and a little smacking of payback. I am not going to jump on the train of she was in on it but it still does seem tone deaf to the Bernie people.

HC will not be able to beat Trump w/o Bernie supporters.

 

[redwood66]

I have to say that my former job was definitely a man's world and it was hard at first to fit in. But the camaraderie that developed once that happened was something I will remember all my life. I know for the women before me it was extremely difficult and harassment was rampant. Those were the times when a union was needed to protect all workers. Now many unions hold government agencies hostage with unrealistic demands. But that is another thread entirely.

That should be started with a IMHO, and as you said, another time and thread!

Which was the exact reason I said many and not all. Many bargaining units in CALIFORNIA have helped that state into its current dire financial situation. They were needed desperately in the 70'spring and 80'see but have too much power now.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I listened to Hillary Clinton's reply last night about the emails.

And she denied ever having seen them and knew nothing about them.

Again she is not aware of what is going on right around her?

Guess not. Here's what she said about the Emails...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmzsWxPLIOo

 

[Gypsy]

Listen, regarding women. I do try to support women. I work in a female dominated field. While Lawyers are traditionally lawyers, there are many female lawyers now and paralegals and contracts manager are overwhelmingly female. And the field is stronger for it.

When it comes to politics, I REALLY REALLY have to curb my bias AGAINST white christian males. They have become a symbol of the glass ceiling, of white privilege and seem to exist in a make believe world that is fueled by a delusional echo chamber.

But while I have to work past that resentment I feel, I cannot say women are automatically the better alternative. So many female politicians are as bad, if not worse than their male counterparts.

I DO feel that Hillary has had to deal with a MOUNTAIN of stuff that, were she a man, would be irrelevant. If a male candidate forgave his cheating spouse he would be hailed as a paragon of Christian forgiveness and be the poster boy for family values. It is RIDICULOUS that Hillary has to defend this choice, and that she is criticized by it.

Also, the claims of her being too masculine. Too aggressive. That is all gender bias and wrong. And it does anger me that she is attacked for this qualities.

I do not in any way close my eyes to what she has been put through.

But just because she has been attacked by bigots doesn't make her a good person. It just makes her detractors bad.

Yes, she has fought for women's rights. And she has been attacked and accused of all kinds of vile things: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

But she HAS LIED AGAIN AND AGAIN and been caught in those lies. Watch the Daily Show. They are WITHOUT QUESTION liberal in their bias, and even they have not been able to ignore her lies. And she IS part of the problem that is our political system, so deeply woven into it and benefiting from it that she has made NO effort to reform that process, and will not do so as President either.

I consider myself an essentially fair person. I cannot support someone just because of their plumbing and ignore their moral fiber because of that plumbing. That said, I do agree that sexism is alive and well. And even when I cannot support a candidate whole heartedly I CAN and DO fight against sexism and gender bias against that candidate. Which is what I do with Hillary. I don't like her. She's not my candidate. I am not voting for her, I am voting against Trump. That said, I wholeheartedly appreciate that many of the attacks against her are biased on bigotry and misogyny and I abhor and condemn that.

 

[missy]

Listen, regarding women. I do try to support women. I work in a female dominated field. While Lawyers are traditionally lawyers, there are many female lawyers now and paralegals and contracts manager are overwhelmingly female. And the field is stronger for it.

When it comes to politics, I REALLY REALLY have to curb my bias AGAINST white christian males. They have become a symbol of the glass ceiling, of white privilege and seem to exist in a make believe world that is fueled by a delusional echo chamber.

But while I have to work past that resentment I feel, I cannot say women are automatically the better alternative. So many female politicians are as bad, if not worse than their male counterparts.

I DO feel that Hillary has had to deal with a MOUNTAIN of stuff that, were she a man, would be irrelevant. If a male candidate forgave his cheating spouse he would be hailed as a paragon of Christian forgiveness and be the poster boy for family values. It is RIDICULOUS that Hillary has to defend this choice, and that she is criticized by it.

Also, the claims of her being too masculine. Too aggressive. That is all gender bias and wrong. And it does anger me that she is attacked for this qualities.

I do not in any way close my eyes to what she has been put through.

But just because she has been attacked by bigots doesn't make her a good person. It just makes her detractors bad.

Yes, she has fought for women's rights. And she has been attacked and accused of all kinds of vile things: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

But she HAS LIED AGAIN AND AGAIN and been caught in those lies. Watch the Daily Show. They are WITHOUT QUESTION liberal in their bias, and even they have not been able to ignore her lies. And she IS part of the problem that is our political system, so deeply woven into it and benefiting from it that she has made NO effort to reform that process, and will not do so as President either.

I consider myself an essentially fair person. I cannot support someone just because of their plumbing and ignore their moral fiber because of that plumbing. That said, I do agree that sexism is alive and well. And even when I cannot support a candidate whole heartedly I CAN and DO fight against sexism and gender bias against that candidate. Which is what I do with Hillary. I don't like her. She's not my candidate. I am not voting for her, I am voting against Trump. That said, I wholeheartedly appreciate that many of the attacks against her are biased on bigotry and misogyny and I abhor and condemn that.

+1 to your whole post but wanted to highlight that last part for emphasis.

 

[AGBF]

Bill really humanized her in his speech last night. He is amazingly charming. (Like Reagan and Obama, two other two term presidents.) I always have to remind myself that he is the one who ended welfare and plunged women and children into poverty.

AGBF

 

[Tekate]

I have to say that my former job was definitely a man's world and it was hard at first to fit in. But the camaraderie that developed once that happened was something I will remember all my life. I know for the women before me it was extremely difficult and harassment was rampant. Those were the times when a union was needed to protect all workers. Now many unions hold government agencies hostage with unrealistic demands. But that is another thread entirely.

That should be started with a IMHO, and as you said, another time and thread!

Which was the exact reason I said many and not all. Many bargaining units in CALIFORNIA have helped that state into its current dire financial situation. They were needed desperately in the 70'spring and 80'see but have too much power now.

do you mean money power? political power? educational power? There were crazy times in the auto industry, when workers were getting paid LOTs, but the industry was making lots too.. I have always looked at unions and owners as a balancing act.. when times are bad, the union needs to give to keep jobs, when times are good the owners should give back.. I will disclose that my father was a member of the Trainmens union in NYC for 45 years (almost) and I was a member of a union when I was a kid working in a grocery store. for me unions got my dad help when he needed it, (alcoholism - getting fired for getting drunk).. the union AA guys took him to meetings and really assisted my mom and dad financially, they helped him get his job back, he died a 32 year member of AA, so I am biased of course.

 

[Tekate]

Great post Gypsy.. I hear you loud and clear. I would have loved to have seen Pelosi run but she is just as much hated by many people.

 

[House Cat]

I think at this point in time, it is very important to begin to shift our focus because if we don't, things could become very, very ugly.

Here is a fact that I haven't seen anyone bring up, ever. I am pretty sure that Hillary Clinton has done more good works than any other politician running for president, ever. If you add the good works the Clinton Foundation is doing, then she definitely surpasses any other presidential candidate for good works done.

The way I see it, you can't focus on the bad without including the good. In order to be fair, you must look at the WHOLE picture when viewing a politician.

Do your research and actually look to see what she has accomplished for the good of the people because the fact of the matter is, she is the Dem. candidate. Complaining about her just brings negative energy to her campaign, which can lose votes, which is the very LAST thing we want.

After watching Trump's acceptance speech, I believe people need to get serious about encouraging people to vote for Hillary. That speech revealed a despotic, sociopathic leader. I am shocked that his speech hasn't been discussed here. Comments across the internet revealed that people are feeling genuine fear if he wins the presidency after hearing that speech. I know that I couldn't believe the things that were coming out of his mouth.

There is a lack of excitement for Hillary's campaign and I get it! I believe that it is time to shift our focus to her positive qualities so that we don't have a disastrous 4 - 8 years with Trump.

 

[AGBF]

I think at this point in time, it is very important to begin to shift our focus because if we don't, things could become very, very ugly.

(snip)

The way I see it, you can't focus on the bad without including the good. In order to be fair, you must look at the WHOLE picture when viewing a politician.

(snip)

After watching Trump's acceptance speech, I believe people need to get serious about encouraging people to vote for Hillary. That speech revealed a despotic, sociopathic leader. I am shocked that his speech hasn't been discussed here. Comments across the internet revealed that people are feeling genuine fear if he wins the presidency after hearing that speech. I know that I couldn't believe the things that were coming out of his mouth.

(snip)

I believe that it is time to shift our focus to her positive qualities so that we don't have a disastrous 4 - 8 years with Trump.

Not only was his acceptance speech bad, but what he said-that was on the radio (and probably televised, although I don't watch much television) throughout the entire next day (the first post0convention day)-was simply beyond belief. It was mainly an attack on Ted Cruz, not an attack on Hillary Clinton, but it was shocking in its narcissism and arrogance. Shocking even coming from Donald trump, whom we have come to know. And that is saying something. It is, indeed, time to scream out that Hillary Clinton is basically a force for good-that she has worked for the rights of women and children-while Donald Trump has worked to make himself more money while crushing any people anywhere in the world.

No one is perfect. But Hillary Clinton does not support evil, repressive régimes. Pope Francis had a very spotty record with the junta in Argentina, but he has gone on to do a lot of good for the poor in the world. He basically stands for good. Hillary Clinton, like Pope Francis, deserves the benefit of the doubt so that she can fight for the people who, otherwise, will be trampled.

AGBF

 

[ruby59]

Am I the only one (besides Tekate) who remembers that women and girls had to wear only skirts; dresses; and jumpers (American jumpers); to school in the 1950's and early 1960's?
__________________________________________

AGBF, you need to come out from the past.

I was born in 1959. During the 1960s heaven help you in school if you were left handed. My teacher would grab the pencil out of my left hand and put it in my right hand. That is until my mother marched into school and told her she better not do that again.

In the 1970s I was told by people in my own religion that if I lay down with a Catholic my children and I would go to H*ll. Well, you know what, this Jewish woman married her Italian sweetheart and will be celebrating 35 years with him in August. We have 3 beautiful children, one Catholic, one Jew, and one who will probably celebrate both like my husband and I did.

In the 1980's during the holidays, my oldest's teacher asked who celebrated Christmas. My son raised his hand. She then asked who celebrated Hanukkah. My son again raised his hand. She went on to tell him he must be mistaken because you cannot celebrate both. Well I can tell you I set her straight.

In the 1990's when my youngest went to school, the question was still asked. And more then a few raised their hands twice. One child had a Jewish mom and an African American father, who raised her hand to Hanukkah, Christmas, and Kwanzaa. And the diversity was celebrated.

So yes, I have seen many changes in my lifetime. And I thank strong men and women who made them so and did not let society stand in their way of living life on their terms.

But I thank them for their accomplishments, not based on their color or sex.

 

[House Cat]

I think at this point in time, it is very important to begin to shift our focus because if we don't, things could become very, very ugly.

(snip)

The way I see it, you can't focus on the bad without including the good. In order to be fair, you must look at the WHOLE picture when viewing a politician.

(snip)

After watching Trump's acceptance speech, I believe people need to get serious about encouraging people to vote for Hillary. That speech revealed a despotic, sociopathic leader. I am shocked that his speech hasn't been discussed here. Comments across the internet revealed that people are feeling genuine fear if he wins the presidency after hearing that speech. I know that I couldn't believe the things that were coming out of his mouth.

(snip)

I believe that it is time to shift our focus to her positive qualities so that we don't have a disastrous 4 - 8 years with Trump.

Not only was his acceptance speech bad, but what he said-that was on the radio (and probably televised, although I don't watch much television) throughout the entire next day (the first post0convention day)-was simply beyond belief. It was mainly an attack on Ted Cruz, not an attack on Hillary Clinton, but it was shocking in its narcissism and arrogance. Shocking even coming from Donald trump, whom we have come to know. And that is saying something. It is, indeed, time to scream out that Hillary Clinton is basically a force for good-that she has worked for the rights of women and children-while Donald Trump has worked to make himself more money while crushing any people anywhere in the world.

No one is perfect. But Hillary Clinton does not support evil, repressive régimes. Pope Francis had a very spotty record with the junta in Argentina, but he has gone on to do a lot of good for the poor in the world. He basically stands for good. Hillary Clinton, like Pope Francis, deserves the benefit of the doubt so that she can fight for the people who, otherwise, will be trampled.

AGBF

Donald Trump is pulling all of his moves out of dictators' past playbooks. This is a fact. He spews false fear and false promises and states that HE is the only person who can fix any of it. He is making promises that can't possibly be kept. He is preying on the ignorant who believe that the president is all powerful in this land.

And I fully believe he might win.

What will that look like for this nation?

This will be a disaster of global proportions. Think now, this thread began as a discussion on Wasserman Shultz stepping down due to a Russian hacker getting into the DNC's emails. The FBI has stated that these hackers have been known to work for the Russian Government. Time and time again, MR. Dancing Fire has stated that Putin has thumbed his nose at OBAMA but nothing is said about Russian hackers who are most likely working for the Russian Government who are meddling with our election and most likely supporting the Trump campaign??

Meanwhile, you have Trump speaking like a dictator.

And you have a likelihood that he might win because he is turning swing states that used to vote Democrat because those states have been decimated by unemployment due to the outsourcing of factory jobs to foreign countries and Trump's (empty) promises to tack on a 35% tariff if those companies outsource their work to Mexico... As if Congress and the Lobbyists will EVER LET THAT FREAKIN HAPPEN! But the uneducated have no idea how our government works. They believe the president rules the earth! So they voted for Trump and they will vote for him again in November because they believe they will protect themselves by doing so.

Romney lost by 64 electoral votes. The Rust Belt IS 64 electoral votes and that is where Trump can win.

Michael Moore just wrote about this. He isn't my favorite guy, but what he says makes sense.

But let's get back to Russia meddling and actually wanting Trump to be president. Can we actually discuss this fact, please? Why would Russia want Trump as president? One theory, Putin has dealt with Hillary. He knows she's a hardass. He doesn't want her as president. He won't get away with shit. Another theory, He knows Trump is an idiot and he will be able to walk all over him. Another theory is that because of what Trump has said about staying out of other country's affairs, Putin knows he will be able to get away with murder, especially considering that the EU is weakening. This is the perfect storm for him.

So people need to think long and hard about this hacker situation and about who they are voting for.

Now, I get it...SCOTUS is a very sticky situation, but you know what? So is this presidential run. I realize the supreme court justices are getting old, but they HAVE been getting old for a very long time. To think that our next president will be appointing 4 justices is assinine.

People need to get real about this Trump situation. They need to start looking at what is ACTUALLY happening here. They need to vote for what is right. Complacency will be the worst thing that can happen in this election...believe me.

 

[Dancing Fire]

This will be a disaster of global proportions. Think now, this thread began as a discussion on Wasserman Shultz stepping down due to a Russian hacker getting into the DNC's emails. The FBI has stated that these hackers have been known to work for the Russian Government. Time and time again, MR. Dancing Fire has stated that Putin has thumbed his nose at OBAMA but nothing is said about Russian hackers who are most likely working for the Russian Government who are meddling with our election and most likely supporting the Trump campaign??

So you believe that the Russians hacked into the DNC emails but not into HC's top secret emails... This race wouldn't even be close if her former boss (Obama) is doing a good job as Prez. Most Americans do not want 4 more years of Obama policies. Yes, Obama would easily beat Trump but not so easy for HC.

 

[AGBF]

AGBF, you need to come out from the past.

I beg your pardon? Would you care to elucidate in which way I am "in the past"? You gave some examples of how your family celebrates diversity; I applaud that. Perhaps you do not follow every posing I make. I can understand that I may not be a topic of endless fascination. In reality, however, I have shared here that my own family is comprised of much diversity: religious, cultural, and racial.

 

[House Cat]

This will be a disaster of global proportions. Think now, this thread began as a discussion on Wasserman Shultz stepping down due to a Russian hacker getting into the DNC's emails. The FBI has stated that these hackers have been known to work for the Russian Government. Time and time again, MR. Dancing Fire has stated that Putin has thumbed his nose at OBAMA but nothing is said about Russian hackers who are most likely working for the Russian Government who are meddling with our election and most likely supporting the Trump campaign??

So you believe that the Russians hacked into the DNC emails but not into HC's top secret emails... This race wouldn't even be close if her former boss (Obama) is doing a good job as Prez. Most Americans do not want 4 more years of Obama policies. Yes, Obama would easily beat Trump but not so easy for HC.

DF,

You don't even make sense anymore.

 

[Gypsy]

This will be a disaster of global proportions. Think now, this thread began as a discussion on Wasserman Shultz stepping down due to a Russian hacker getting into the DNC's emails. The FBI has stated that these hackers have been known to work for the Russian Government. Time and time again, MR. Dancing Fire has stated that Putin has thumbed his nose at OBAMA but nothing is said about Russian hackers who are most likely working for the Russian Government who are meddling with our election and most likely supporting the Trump campaign??

So you believe that the Russians hacked into the DNC emails but not into HC's top secret emails... This race wouldn't even be close if her former boss (Obama) is doing a good job as Prez. Most Americans do not want 4 more years of Obama policies. Yes, Obama would easily beat Trump but not so easy for HC.

DF.

You contradict yourself. You say "Most Americans" do not want 4 more years of Obama's policies. THEN you go on to say that Obama would beat Trump. HOW would that happen if, as you claim, "Most Americans" do not want 4 more years of Obama's polices.

Obama has a 51% approval rating http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

So MOST Americans approve of Obama. That's a FACT. Not an opinion. You appear to have trouble differentiating between the two. So maybe you can do a google search and learn the difference.

You have to stop stating your OPINIONS and you PERSONAL beliefs as FACTS. They are opinions. And, as usual, they are not based on statistics or any type of factual grounding.

You are WRONG. MOST AMERICANS do not agree with you about Obama.

 

[ruby59]

I am not an Obama fan.

But I would be happy to see an emergency extension of his term while we have a do over to find two new candidates who are not total embarrassments.

 

[Gypsy]

I am not an Obama fan.

But I would be happy to see an emergency extension of his term while we have a do over to find two new candidates who are not total embarrassments.

WORD. Or even a write-in-campaign for Michelle Obama. 4 years to find two better candidates.

 

[redwood66]

I am not an Obama fan.

But I would be happy to see an emergency extension of his term while we have a do over to find two new candidates who are not total embarrassments.

I am sure he would too.

 

[Dancing Fire]

DF.

You contradict yourself. You say "Most Americans" do not want 4 more years of Obama's policies. THEN you go on to say that Obama would beat Trump. HOW would that happen if, as you claim, "Most Americans" do not want 4 more years of Obama's polices.

Obama has a 51% approval rating http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

So MOST Americans approve of Obama. That's a FACT. Not an opinion. You appear to have trouble differentiating between the two. So maybe you can do a google search and learn the difference.

You have to stop stating your OPINIONS and you PERSONAL beliefs as FACTS. They are opinions. And, as usual, they are not based on statistics or any type of factual grounding.

You are WRONG. MOST AMERICANS do not agree with you about Obama.

My point is that the left loves Obama even though he's doing a poor job as POTUS, but many of these Obama supporters will not vote for HC.

 

[Dancing Fire]

This will be a disaster of global proportions. Think now, this thread began as a discussion on Wasserman Shultz stepping down due to a Russian hacker getting into the DNC's emails. The FBI has stated that these hackers have been known to work for the Russian Government. Time and time again, MR. Dancing Fire has stated that Putin has thumbed his nose at OBAMA but nothing is said about Russian hackers who are most likely working for the Russian Government who are meddling with our election and most likely supporting the Trump campaign??

So you believe that the Russians hacked into the DNC emails but not into HC's top secret emails... This race wouldn't even be close if her former boss (Obama) is doing a good job as Prez. Most Americans do not want 4 more years of Obama policies. Yes, Obama would easily beat Trump but not so easy for HC.

DF,

You don't even make sense anymore.

Yup, only the radical left make any sense.. However, I'll take HC over Obama as POTUS b/c I'd think that she'll run our country more moderate than Obama.

 

[Tekate]

DF.

You contradict yourself. You say "Most Americans" do not want 4 more years of Obama's policies. THEN you go on to say that Obama would beat Trump. HOW would that happen if, as you claim, "Most Americans" do not want 4 more years of Obama's polices.

Obama has a 51% approval rating http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

So MOST Americans approve of Obama. That's a FACT. Not an opinion. You appear to have trouble differentiating between the two. So maybe you can do a google search and learn the difference.

You have to stop stating your OPINIONS and you PERSONAL beliefs as FACTS. They are opinions. And, as usual, they are not based on statistics or any type of factual grounding.

You are WRONG. MOST AMERICANS do not agree with you about Obama.

My point is that the left loves Obama even though he's doing a poor job as POTUS, but many of these Obama supporters will not vote for HC.

So, in what way? Poor job, what has he done that is such a poor job? I always read this, but I don't understand how an American can say this given how the recession is over.. You say this as though Congress (tea party/conservative republicans) didn't try to thwart any and all moves he made towards jobs. I would love to read what he did that was so poor.

 

[BeekeeperBetty]

John Oliver from Last Week Tonight had an interesting segment about the GOP and facts vs feelings. Gingrich literally said that although the number the liberals bring out may be theoretically true, he cares more about how people feel. Very interesting.

This may be NSW because of language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNdkrtfZP8I

 

[Dancing Fire]

DF.

You contradict yourself. You say "Most Americans" do not want 4 more years of Obama's policies. THEN you go on to say that Obama would beat Trump. HOW would that happen if, as you claim, "Most Americans" do not want 4 more years of Obama's polices.

Obama has a 51% approval rating http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

So MOST Americans approve of Obama. That's a FACT. Not an opinion. You appear to have trouble differentiating between the two. So maybe you can do a google search and learn the difference.

You have to stop stating your OPINIONS and you PERSONAL beliefs as FACTS. They are opinions. And, as usual, they are not based on statistics or any type of factual grounding.

You are WRONG. MOST AMERICANS do not agree with you about Obama.

My point is that the left loves Obama even though he's doing a poor job as POTUS, but many of these Obama supporters will not vote for HC.

So, in what way? Poor job, what has he done that is such a poor job? I always read this, but I don't understand how an American can say this given how the recession is over.. You say this as though Congress (tea party/conservative republicans) didn't try to thwart any and all moves he made towards jobs. I would love to read what he did that was so poor.

Yes, Obama is a very popular Prez, but Obama will be the only post war President who will not see a 3% growth in GDP during his presidency.The backbone of the US economy is job creating by the small businesses, but the ACA (the not so affordable care act) killed our economy, b/c most small businesses will only hire part time employees to avoid paying for medical insurances.

 

[Tekate]

Okay fair enough!

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2016/03/blinder-watsonthe-us-economy-grows-faster-under-democratic-presidents.html

 

[Calliecake]

Okay fair enough!

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2016/03/blinder-watsonthe-us-economy-grows-faster-under-democratic-presidents.html

Thank you Tekate!!!!!