Originally posted by Chucko Why because CNN asked 10 people about his behavior? Who cares. He was still from the hood, he was dirt poor and made it out. I don't even care to argue about this because my point was how the media goes after him and ignores Hillary's lie when they have video. Hillary lied about being under sniper fire at the airport in Bosnia, there is video proof she was not, if she worked for NBC she would have lost her job, ask Brian Williams.

Originally posted by RihsusChrist(ATG) Normally I agree with you, but a man that embellishes the truth about trivial things, will certainly lie about important things. Carson is a nut...he sooner he gets exposed, and implodes, the better for the GOP.

Originally posted by Chucko I'm not arguing for Carson, I'm arguing for the same standards to be applied to him and everyone else.

Originally posted by L/\DY G/\G/\ The media does not ignore Hillary's life. Clinton's 2008 campaign was partially derailed after a comment Bill Clinton made about the voters in South Carolina and how it gain traction with conservative and liberal leaning media.

Originally posted by Chucko This isn't a recent thing with Democrats under Obama Democrats have lost: 900+ state legislature seats 12 governors 69 House seats 13 Senate seats Republicans now hold 32 of the nation's governorships. That's some legacy. The Dem candidate wanted nothing to do with Obama while running and lost to a Tea Party business man with no political experience. For the most part the Democrats lost across the board on Tuesday on almost every issue and at every level with a few exceptions.

This is unfair. Democrats may have had a big loss but that was only because they had enormous gains in his first term, on the back of Obamas coattails. The drop happens to everyone, not just BO. Political scientists call it the six year itch.

Javan, do you like Obama?

Originally posted by Giselle Javan, do you like Obama?

Originally posted by Javan This is unfair. Democrats may have had a big loss but that was only because they had enormous gains in his first term, on the back of Obamas coattails. The drop happens to everyone, not just BO. Political scientists call it the six year itch.

Originally posted by Chucko Except he started getting wiped out after 2 years and it didn't stop. That six-year-itch came 4 years to early. No 2 term president has lost as many seats country wide has he has.

Originally posted by Javan But as I already said, their initial gains were abnormally large, so there was bound to be a drop even after the 2nd year. The point is there is almost always a drop after every 1st term with the new president. Nothing unique to Obama, it just happened in different intervals.

Originally posted by Javan Not particularly. I can see why he was likeable, but at the same time I think he gets more hate than he deserves. People make out that he accomplished nothing at all and have a habit of blaming him for things he had no part in

http://atrl.net/forums/showthread.php?t=896839

Vote

Originally posted by rivers People act like he's the worst president we've ever had and that's not true at all.They have a twisted misconception of him. He's going down as a historical president not only for being black but for all the stuff he has accomplished with such a divided congress. It may not look like it now, but 50 years from now we're going to reflect back and think wow, he really did do a lot with the tea party out to impeach him, repeal Obamacare, etc.

Originally posted by Damien M I think he was an okay president. Not good, but OK. He failed African Americans big-league though (he was basically a president for the gays and hispanics but lets not go there )

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf But again, the black vote is not up for grabs so he could afford to wait until the last year to look like he's done something.

In all honesty, why should it be? Are black people supposed to believe Jeb or Ben would be better for blacks than the dems? How good democrats are for black people is debatable, but what's not debatable is that they're in better hands than they would be with the other side.

Originally posted by Giselle In all honesty, why should it be? Are black people supposed to believe Jeb or Ben would be better for blacks than the dems? How good democrats are for black people is debatable, but what's not debatable is that they're in better hands than they would be with the other side.

Originally posted by Giselle In all honesty, why should it be? Are black people supposed to believe Jeb or Ben would be better for blacks than the dems? How good democrats are for black people is debatable, but what's not debatable is that they're in better hands than they would be with the other side.

You have Jeb saying blacks want "free stuff", Christie condemning Black Lives Matter and Carson auditioning for the role of Uncle Tom. When they aren't straight up ignoring the black community, they're digging at them. What about that side would make black people want to listen to what they have to say? What about that should be appealing to blacks?

Hillary, say what you want about her, is the only candidate really reaching out to blacks. Actually meeting with the mothers/families of victims of police brutality, shouting out HBCUs in speeches (showing she's "down") and actually unveiling an HBCU 25B initiative, actually holding events targeted towards blacks, spending more time in the South than anybody else, not trying to silence BLM activists when confronted etc.

I wouldn't use "pander", but don't say no dems are reaching out to blacks.