Barack Obama said Monday that he could have won a third term against Donald Trump if the Constitution allowed him to run again. Do you think he's right?
No matter who you support Obama is a much more popular candidate then trump and Hillary.
Yes... in term of popularity
Obama > Hillary
Hillary > Trump
Therefore Obama > Trump
But Trump beat Hillary
Monkey boy is so delusional. This country rejected his and the liberal policies all over the place. He is so full of himself and so arrogant. I can't wait for January 20 when he and that women fall of the face of the planet.
Especially when they elected him again...
Monkey boy?? What is your problem!! You are the people we don't need in this country.
Just joined huh Jay? Get used to it. Didn't know I can't call morons like him names. I know it's only a one way street in libtard land, but c'mon, wake up.
Monkey Boy is disrespectful to African Americans call him a dumbass or a moron
Obama would have lost. Sure he might have picked up more votes in states that already went blue. But look at the swing states. It is precisely because of Obamas 8 years creating a rust belt that those states went red this time.
Sadly, yes. Without even considering their policies, both Trump and Hilary were horrible candidates for president. Both come across as unlikable and arrogant. Both clearly only care about themselves. Both acted entitled throughout the entire campaign. Both have plenty of obvious skeletons in their closets. Both would have lost to almost any other candidate from the other party. Trump won because Hilary was an even worse candidate than him.
Obama, when not considering his policies, is a "good" candidate. He is charismatic, and comes across as "cool" and likable. He also has that "x factor" where people just flock to him for some reason. I disagree with him on almost everything, but as far as being a candidate goes, he is a "good" one. If he could have run again, he would have beat Trump easily.
He campaigned against DT heavily on swing states for Hillary and he won all of them. Shows how little the people like him. He's full of it
Don't let the door hit him in the butt when he leaves
He beat Hilary by a good margin in his primaries, so he probably stood a better chance
Absolutely not. The man may be a dynamic and captivating speaker but that's all. His policies are a absurd and is a weak leader.
He is a horrible President, elected by racism rather than accomplishment. The damage he has caused, and how far he has set this country back, has yet to be determined.
Wow! That is impressively idiotic. It's not like the stock market is up over 100%, or he's one of the most liked presidents ever, or conditions have improved since he's been president, except it did, he is, and they have been. At least the republicans worked with him and did not openly go against him because of his party, or willingly shut down the government, except they did.
Obama is one of the best presidents in a while, Trump won't be any better, and only biased conservatives think he will be.
Absurd, the only thing he proved is that Obama is arrogant, lacks any degree of humility and one of the most divisive Presidents we have witnessed.
You just described trump, lol.
Greenie, this country was divided long before Trump came on the scene. This election has been a vote against Obama's legacy, and well deserved.
Then why is Obama's approval rating at an all time high? The U.S. has always been in a struggle to achieve unity, but Trump's rhetoric is getting in the way of progress.
Harry- little do people know or like to admit, this country was divided long before Obama came into office. And it had nothing to do with politics really. It wasn't Bush fault either. This country has always been a powder keg. Social media just put all of this on front street. Before then, people in the east didn't know that those in the west were angry over the same things, and vice versa. We are a long time divided country.
The question was about Trump and we shall see what takes place in his administration. Time will tell. I'm not sure what polls your looking at but most have shown throughout his administration as second rate at best. Many have said worse than Carter which is going some. Obama without question is one of the most divisive Presidents this country has ever seen. It appears you may have more confidence in the media than most.
Not confidence in the media. I've just seen the anger and the hate for more than half my life. So I know for a fact how long it's been there and how common it is. This is nothing new at all, just the "now" thing to say. I'm 45 and like I said, I've always seen this stuff.
Well for the record, I'm a tad older that you and yes while there has always been those who hate, most administrations have done their utmost to avoid a confrontation. Obama never learned that and relied on the likes of Sharpton and Jackson to fester the hate. I'm pretty sure that if Dr. King was still alive he would be embarrassed and put a stop to this fanatical behaviour. Frankly one side is no better than the other but the key factor is experience, diplomacy, and knowing how to play in the sandbox. Sadly, Obama never got the message.
You (administrations) can no longer avoid it. It's front and center and it's a key part of the new America. The new president is going to have to deal with it beginning in his first 100 days; it's inevitable.
HonestyisBest, I am curious about all this hate you refer to, what the hell are you referring to specifically, racism, corruption, political bribery, welfare cheats or something else? Please note, despite Obama's best efforts, this is one of the few countries that actually allows free speech.
The hate that I see refers to the first one- racism. I'm not concerned with the others, as they weigh far less on those I am close to than the others. The divide in this country that he gets blamed for, comes down mainly to that. People think/thought he was supposed to come into office and bring the entire race into the fold; the assimilation thing. The more that didn't happen, the more he was seen as divisive.
Honesty is Best, you say "divided", Liberal Progressives call it "cultural diversity" and tell us that it is what made us strong, instead of spinach.
Liberal progressives is just another term for Socialism. If the Democrats were honest enough to admit the direction the part has taken, they might gain or respect or at least a better understanding. The Democratic Party of yesteryear is long gone. Of course the same can be said for the Republican Party. Both have lost touch with their constituents and that is a sad day for America.
He always ran on hope and change. He'd have to find a new campaign theme. Obama would most likely win against Trump, but not against any regular Republican the GOP could have put up.
Ôbama is why Trump one. Half the people didn't want another term of him. Which is what we would have gotten with Hillary.
He put his agenda on the ballot when he helped campaign for Hillary and we see how that went.
Plus the democrats lost congressional seats and a lot of seats even in state legislatures during his tenure.
Just like every president since Jefferson.
@senate101 uh what?
Every president since Thomas Jefferson has lost congressional seats during midterms.
At least one.
Yes. Clinton was a huge mistake. Bernie as well. And Trump.
WHY DOES HE KEEP SAYING "IF I COULD RUN FOR A 3RD TERM"?!?
SURE! IF I COULD FLY, I'D GO TO EUROPE FOR VACATION, BUT THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE SO WHY EVEN SAY IT!?
But that's racist, right?
Are you implying that liberals call everything "racist"? If that's the case it could have something to do with all the "Kenyan Muslim monkey" rhetoric from the right wing, but what do I know...
Actually he never said the word "liberal"
Hemikid is implying that someone will call him a racist and I don't think he is talking about rightists.
I don't think anyone would find that racist. And I'm pretty liberal overall.
A. He was mocking the Social Justice Warriors of the left. (i.e. The people who would call you racist for criticizing the black president.
B. No widely respected Republican ever called Obama such things. McCain even disavowed those rumors on several occasions.
I don't think any widely respected liberal ever made bs racism claims either. If idiotic social justice warriors represent liberals, racists like the "Jew S A" guy have to represent conservatives. Can't have it both ways.
Possibly because he would be more popular than Hilary, but it's still hard to say because many still opposed him as well, and Trump has his supporters.
Barry the Vainglorious can't help himself -he reads the NYT.
One more term and the debt could be $30 trillion -funny he forgot to mention that in his self summation of his excellency.
Just zero-bama running his big mouth again.
Against Donald? Yes. Barry Soetoro would've won.
Typical SOH - 55% said he would have won but most comments against.
Most people don't comment.
Obama loves himself a lot more than people do!
I think he'd have a decent shot at some of the moderates. Hillary was a really bad candidate but they put their money on the identity politics and thought her being a woman would get her enough traction despite being a complete cunt. I don't really like Obama's ideology but I can't say he's a bad guy. Sure he's done some shit I don't agree with but Trump terrifies me and I think we're in for 1984 all the way now.
Yes. And that is exhibit #1 for why we need to have term limits.
Probably. Obama does a great job of attracting sheep.
And Trump didn't?
Democrats lost big on this election and rejecting obama's agenda was a big part of it. Besides our country doesn't need another $10 trillion added to our debt.
Well, get ready to rumble because Trump has already promised a $1T+ "infrastructure" "stimulus" package and he's not even been inaugurated yet.
If government spending and expansion are your concerns, Trump is not our man. Although, once primary was over we didn't really have a reel-in-the-spending shrink-government option left.
But I will certainly take him over any D right now to save Israel if for no other reason. He does have a few good qualities and policies compared to none on the D side. But Reagan he is not.
Yeah we did otto, you could have voted libertarian.
Otto. The problem with obamas infrastructure spending is that much of the money went to waste and fraud, often paying for projects that never got done. Trump can hopefully at least make sure the money actually goes to getting project completed efficiently. Trump has already got Boeing to dramatically drop the price on planes they are building for the government and he isn't even in office yet.
Obama's idea of stimulus was sent to local and state governments to bail them out of ridiculous union contracts for public servants such as teachers, police and firefighters - that is why there was no shovel ready jobs -it was meant to buy influence -standard operating procedure for Democrats.
I Did. Unfortunately there was no realistic chance for anyone but those 2 jerks.
But EVERY big government big spending initiative has SOMETHING wrong with it. Corruption has snuck intentionally or unintentionally into every last one. There is NOTHING to indicate this would be any different.
Otto, that's a self fulfilling prophecy. If people would just shut up about them "not having a chance" and vote for them then they'd win
He is blind to the reality that Trump's voters were not only voting down Hillary but his past 8 years of mismanaging America and its breadwinners..
I know nine people that fought it for Obama and they either switch parties or just all voted for Trump because they couldn't stand Obama so now I don't think he could've carried it in that's the only ones I know of they know people as well. I've heard of people in my town and their Democrat so they want trump now something was different this time
Definitely. Hillary was not a strong candidate, and it was close. Electoral votes don't look it, but state-by-state, the margins weren't huge. That's the system we live in, so I'm not trying to discredit his win. I'm just saying that if you win a state by two votes, you get all the electoral college votes, and it actually was quite close. Obama was a much stronger candidate than Hillary. Whether you like him or dislike him, you do so strongly. Hillary was strongly disliked by many, but not strongly liked by very many at all.
As we saw in 2012 he would have relied on spending lots of money on character assassination of the Republican front runner regardless of who it was from the very beginning to the very end of the race.
Come to think of it, that was Hillary's strategy.
And people think that Trump is the boastful one...
He's delusional and a narcissist.
What? Trump's not a narcissist ? I'm not commenting on the question at all. But really? Calling Barack a narcissist and insinuating that Trump isn't is the pot calling the kettle black. Wow.
Where is anything insinuated about Trump in her comment?
None -but to the Barry sycophants - there can be no question of his greatness of character or brilliance of policy -that is strictly verboten.
He would have had a better chance than Hillary did. People are stupid and will stick with what is comfortable to them, even if it is bad, rather than move on to something new.
I would hope that even the people that would want him would reason with balance.
Not a chance in this world would Obama have won. We have counting the days until he is gone!
I think you mean "are"? It's ok if you post things on this thread and don't reread before you post. But the idiot you support should probably be smart enough and presidential enough to not do the same when he tweets as impulsively as you.
The "idiot you support" another great comment by another 'tolerant' Dem who only wants to unify the country.
Hypocrites or as we all know -just another day in Dem fantasy land.
Enjoy the hinterland and now go quickly back to your safe space in your parents basement and reminisce staring at your hope and change poster.
I bet my English is better than your command of my native language butt head.
The constitution only allows two terms for a sitting president. He is delusional to think he could run in spite of the constitution.
The hypothetical scenario he's talking about is if that amendment to the Constitution was not in place, not actually in the current reality we live in now.
It says: if the constitution allowed him too
Reading is hard
lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, seriously!
Anyone but Hillary Clinton would've beaten trump
You are nuts
Shows the arrogance of not only MrO. It also the Democrat party!
Why am I nuts. He barely beat one of the most hated politicians in the United States of America. Congratulations?
No. Trump won because America is tired of Obama's path to socialism.
You do realize both Obama and Clinton are both massive corporatists right? Sanders could surely be labeled as such, but Obama is nowhere near an actual socialist.
Laney, 1:4 Americans voted for him, stop pretending it's some mandate from the masses.
Rebel ... since 2007, what's happened to the Democrat power structure at the federal, state and local levels?
As for the mandate, the fact is that 2:4 chose to accept the decisions of others by choosing not to vote. That means 3:4 of Americans voted against the continuation of the failures of MrO.
Socialism? You can't be serious.
Hahaha think 😂😂😂
The Lord Jesus was a socialist, so he would be in good company.
Bernie was a socialist and every bernie vs trump poll had bernie winning..... but yeah I'm sure that's it
Drogan - Jesus was most certainly not a socialist. He taught that we should help each other voluntarily. Socialists believe in taking people's money and goods in order to help others. There's a huge difference between charity and socialism.
Tom is right, there's absolutely no way that Jesus was a socialist. For those who suggest that he was -- including Drogon-the-blocker, please explain the Parable of the Talents with respect to the Savior's supposed socialist view. When that's finished, I am anxious for the explanation on 2 Chronicles 32:8.
The fact is that the Savior recognized that talents are distributed unevenly and that from those who are given much, more is expected. Additionally, He charged us to not rely on no one, rather we are to rely only on Him.
Who would Jesus deny healthcare to?
Elioth ... noted that you refused to answer my question, yet asked a question of your own.
It's curious that you'd ask the question you asked! It appears you may not be familiar with Jesus' disdain for all things government. See Mark 12:17 for a primer. Additionally, it is clear that Jesus taught us to be individually charitable to others. However, His position was that forced benevolence is clearly not charity. And government forced benevolence of diluted benefits is the certainly the worst of the worst.
To answer your question directly, I believe no one is denied healthcare in the US today, just like no one is denied food, shelter, an 80" flat screen TV or that summer home on the lake. In fact, I advocate for the EXACT same level of government meddling in health care that existed in Jesus' day. How about that?
I'll await your responses to my questions.
Hold up, you don't think anyone is denied healthcare in America? Tell that to the 45,000 people and their families who, every year, die due to the lack to basic healthcare. And you dodged my question. Jesus wanted everyone to be equal, and was a Marxist before Marxism was even a thing. All you have to do is go back to his message, which was equality, no matter the cost.
Elioth ... I dodged nothing. No one is denied healthcare. As I said, no one is denied a summer home on the lake either. You simply have to EARN it.
You also refused to address the now several questions that I asked about Jesus' position as you failed to show even a shred of evidence that He was a socialist.
Let's make this simple, address the Parable of the Talents with respect to your misguided Marxist views and Jesus.
Lmao, not a Marxist, social democrat. And you just compared a second home to healthcare, which shouldn't be a privilege for only the ones who can afford it, healthcare should be a right. On top of that, Marxism, in theory, is a socialist economy which puts people before companies, distrusts the rich and actively makes the rich redistribute the wealth through heavy taxes on the rich, and actively promotes an egalitarian society, in which everyone is equal, economically, at least. Now, doesn't that sound similiar to Jesus's message?
Elioth ... given your unwillingness to answer questions, or respond honestly, I'll leave you to your delusion.
In the end, healthcare is absolutely the same as filet mignon or a summer home on the lake. You are not entitled to any services. In this country, you have relative freedoms to earn those things.
As for your mincing of whether you're a socialist or communist or Marxist, I suggest that you may be the only one who cares. I guess Hitler would be pleased that you -- like him and Mr Sanders -- are social democrats. But it's unlikely than anyone else cares. While you immerse yourself in self-awareness and socialism, the rest of us will keep the economy going so that you are free to pursue your delusions.
Jesus was most certainly not a socialist, communist, Marxist or any other variation on the failed social structure that depends on other peoples' money to support freeloaders. Jesus taught us to be individually responsible for ourselves and charitable towards others.
Again, what questions? Also, if you nor I are entitled to public services, then do you believe that the police force, or Firemen, or prisons should be owned by a private corporation Instead if the government?
And Im the one who is delusional? You just called Hitler a social democrat, which is dead wrong, he was a National socialist, which is Authoritarian Right, while Social Democracy is libertarian left. Those are polar opposites. Also, I support a hybridization of both capitalism and socialism.
And the only two times pure capitalism was tried in America, we got the Stock Market crash of 1929, and the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis of 2008. Sorry buddy, your ideology ruins the economy, not saves it.
And Jesus did teach us about charity and to be responsible tepees others, but he also wanted the state to make sure that happens.
Elioth ... are you seriously suggesting that you can't see the several questions I've asked?
Let's start with this one ... Please explain the Parable of the Talents based on your silly notion that Jesus was a socialist.
Ya, you should really invest in question marks
But here's the parable
In both Matthew and Luke, a master puts his servants in charge of his goods while he is away on a trip. Upon his return, the master assesses the stewardship of his servants. He evaluates them according to how faithful each was in making wise investments of his goods to obtain a profit. It is clear that the master sought some profit from the servants’ oversight. A gain indicated faithfulness on the part of the servants. The master rewards his servants according to how each has handled his stewardship. He judges two servants as having been “faithful” and gives them a positive reward. To the single unfaithful servant who “played it safe,” a negative compensation is given.
I also love how you ignored everything else I said, truly touching.
Elioth ... how ridiculous can you be? For you to suggest that "Please explain ..." is somehow different that "Can you explain ...?" is simply nonsense! And since you want to get picky, I note that when referring to the Savior, you use the pronoun "he" instead of "He". I wonder why that is the case.
As for your interpretation of the Parable of the Talents. The fact is that in the parable, the master required of his servants that they return an increase based on the talents given. Those that returned an increase or magnified their talents were rewarded. The lazy servant who not only didn't magnify his talent was punished.
This clearly indicates that the Savior ...
1. ... endows His servants with varying degress of talents ... some start out with more, and some with less, confirming that not all are given the same talents or even the same number of talents, and
2. ... expects His servants to magnify their talents, no matter how many they received.
Elioth ... if the Savior had been a socialist, why wouldn't He have ensured that all servants received the exact same number of talents?
Psst ... note the question mark!
Your right, the master based it on a meritocracy, but notice he gave all of them all something.
Elioth ... you have free air. You don't get a free summer home on the lake or free healthcare. You get to earn them.
Socialism/communism /Marxism are the antithesis of a meritocracy.
That doesn't sound very, capitalist of him, now does it?
Again, comparing a summer home to healthcare just shows me how out of touch are you. Besides, if I must earn healthcare, must I earn the protection of the police? No, because that's a government service I pay for with my taxes, same goes for Healthcare. And might I add tens of thousands of people die every year due to the lack of basic healthcare, and you just say,"work harder." But they can't, because the health companies price gouge the average people to a point they can't pay for it anymore. But you must "earn it" by "working harder." ya right.
Heck, there people who work 60 hours a week and bust their butts to make ends meet and they still can't afford healthcare, so what about that?
The antithesis of a meritocracy is an aristocracy, not socialism
Elioth ... once you grow up, and are in a position to earn your own way, you'll start to understand.
With a meritocracy you are able to enjoy the fruits of your labors and with socialism your "merit" is worth nothing more than the laziest Democrat in town.
As Winston Churchill so wisely observed ... "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Again, social democracies, not pure socialism. In social democracies, you still must work to make it, but your most basic needs, like your health, are paid by your taxes, while the rest you must work for. Although, if you are down on your luck, the government will help you. And I love the condescending way your saying this, when you compared healthcare to a summer home. And Winston Churchill is taking about our socialism, or communism, not a social democracy, also, Churchill was a staunch Conservative
I guarantee your either
2. A reactionary
3. You own a healthcare company
4. You're ignorant
Also, you're an Anarcho-Capitalist, aren't you?
Elioth ... thanks for confirming that you're a sniveling 15 year old that thinks they know about life.
The son of a penniless single mother, who grew up in poverty, I earned a masters in computer engineering in my own. and spent a lifetime working hard to pay my own way. I raised four responsible children, and put all through college -- unlike my mother.
I've paid my taxes and continue to give generously to charity. I don't drink or smoke and pay for my own insurance.
I could have listened to the voices in the slums where I grew up. I could have blamed everyone else for my position in life. I just chose not to.
So, as for your sophomoric classifications, I am none of the above. Unlike you, I learned early that the only way to succeed was hard work and dedication to my own success.
Ahh, rags to riches story, that's why you hate socialism and believe you should earn everything, because the capitalist system has given you everything. You're lucky, I'll give you that, but again, tell the millions of people who work fulltime jobs, but still live in poverty you must earn healthcare.
And a sniveling 15 year old, last time I cried was when my grandmother died, about 4 years ago. And no need for name calling, the only reason you would resort to slander is because you can't win in the realm of ideas, with facts.
And for me not working hard? Then why is it that I have straight A's in my honors classes, AP classes, and my Duel enrollment class.
And as for the people in the slums, society has truly let them down, and it's not like poverty is shrinking, it's growing. Almost 50% of Americans live at or near the poverty line and 73% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. I'll say it again, tell them to earn it, what do you think they've been doing? Working 2 jobs just pay for rent. Working 60 hour weeks just to get their kids the toy they want. This is why we need a national health system, subsidized higher education, to strengthen the welfare systems we already have in place, and to raise the minimum wage. With a nationwide healthcare, 45,000 people won't die needlessly from a lack of healthcare. With a subsidized higher education, people can get out of poverty, just like you did, with education. We should also subsidize the student loan debt. And strengthening to welfare systems will only give people more opportunities to get out of poverty. With the minimum wage, people work practically slave wages at full time jobs,
So with that, I'm not saying a blanket 15$ an hour minimum wage. What I want is the minimum wage to be adjusted for each state, because the cost of living in Nebraska is a whole lot different than the cost of living in California.
Lol no he lost his voter base.
White working males, who were his majority in 2008 and 2012 were tired of being dumped on by his social narrative. Now they've spoken.
By voting in a billionaire CEO, yeah he's definitely absolutely gonna sympathize with the average white working male, you're so right
We will come to rue that Constitutional amendment.
Suppressed ... you're as delusional as always.
Yeah he probably would have. Incumbents always have an advantage.
Thankfully we only had to endure one term of Mr Carter, the only modern president to rival MrO for the worst president.
Carter was not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Tested like carter was with the hostage situation I believe Obama would've faltered like carter.
Son ... MrO was tested. He likewise failed each test. Possibly the worst failure for MrO was the cowardly response to his own threat over the red line in Syria. Hundreds of thousands have died as a result and millions have been displaced.
Yeah I had forgotten about that empty threat. Rather troublesome from a deterrence perspective. He embarrassed the US for doing that.
I don't know, Regean was pretty bad with the economy too, by exploding our debt to new heights.
He did run again, as Hillary Clinton. All of his Eight years were rejected.
Thank God for presidential term limits.
Obama's policies are partly to blame for why Trump is now the president elect.
It would have been close, but yes.
This election had the Democrats, not just Hillary, lose big time. Numerous counties that voted for Obama twice voted for Trump.
Mark if you look closely you'll notice a slight difference; Clinton was running not Obama. Clinton one of the most scandalous politicians in the past 20 or so years. Emails, Benghazi, etc. another difference; Obama campaigned and campaigned and campaigned, he was charismatic and instilled hope. After Clinton won the Wisconsin PRIMARY she didn't go there ONCE. Not once, and because of her arrogance what do you know, she lost Wisconsin, and ended up losing the whole thing.
I think everyone is over Obama.
No...too many are tired of being ignored & wanted ANYONE who wasn't a career politician!