Of course it is hyperbole…But fun!
Of course it is hyperbole…But fun!
Wow! Obama for President…of France!
Now a petition is calling for an even bigger plot twist: the return of President Barack Obama. As in, French President Barack Obama.
Earlier this week, the Obama 2017 campaign was launched, calling for the former U.S. president to step forward as a candidate in the French election while there’s still time.
“Barack Obama has completed his second term as President of the United States,” the site says. “Why not hire him as president of France? … [He] has the best resume in the world for the job.”
Posters for Obama 2017 have been plastered around Paris. The slogan, of course: “Oui on peut,” French for “Yes we can.” And a campaign-style website is gathering signatures to persuade Obama to run.
It’s not the first time French citizens have expressed longing for Obama’s leadership — at least two petitions were started last year — but it’s by far the most successful. According to the site’s organizers, some 27,000 people have signed the petition so far.
A group of four friends — “basic 30-year-old guys from Paris” who work in creative industries — came up with the idea “after a drink,” according to one of the people behind the site. He asked NPR not to use his name, to avoid possible legal consequences that could damage his career.
“We were thinking about French politics and saying that we were fed up with the fact that we all the time had to vote against someone,” he says, “and how it would be cool to be able to vote for someone we admire. We came up with Obama.”
“I think the whole world would love to have him as president,” he says.
They have an Island Prison where they kept their last dictator, Napoleon… Think we might be able to work a deal and use it for the Chumph?
The hacking of the electoral system in the US is far more extensive than anyone in Government has made public.
When the President of the US says he is going to order dropping a “cyber-rock” on Russia…
It means there is a lot more dirt on Putin’s B-boi the Chumph than has been made public. The Chumph is a Traitor.
As to schedule – this will happen before the inauguration (if it happens) of the Chumph, such that the Chumph can’t protect his master, Putin.
If I had to wager a guess, and what I would do if I were Obama…Mr Putin’s ill gotten net wealth of $85 billion…
Would suffer a seriously precipitous drop.
President Obama is promising action after Russia’s interference in the presidential election.
“I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections, that we need to take action and we will — at a time and a place of our own choosing,” Mr. Obama told NPR’s Steve Inskeep, in response to a question about whether it was necessary for Russia to pay a price for interfering in the election. “Some of it may be…explicit and publicized. Some of it may not be.”
In the interview, Mr. Obama added that “Mr. Putin is well aware of my feelings about this — because I spoke to him directly about it.”
American intelligence officials say they are convinced that Russian hacking of the U.S. presidential election was approved by Putin. Sources confirmed to CBS News they believe Putin was aware of attacks that began in July of last year, CBS News correspondent Jeff Pegues reported Thursday.
President Obama first confronted Putin about the Russian election hacking in September, on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hangzhou, China, senior Obama administration officials confirmed to CBS News. The Russians were already aware that the U.S. had detected the intrusions, as Secretary Kerry had previously raised it. Secretary Kerry alerted Russia in a July meeting with its Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that the U.S. had detected the intrusions of Democratic party systems and email hacking.
In what was described as a blunt 90-minute long meeting, Mr. Obama let Putin know what the U.S. had discovered and warned that when it comes to cyber capabilities, the U.S. has more capacity to attack than anybody.
Putin aide Yuri Ushakov referred to the same meeting in remarks published Friday by Russia’s state-run news agency Tass.
“There was a private meeting during which this issue was touched upon,” Ushakov said. “Russia gave a clear answer which was probably not consistent with what Obama tried to explain to us.”
Within hours of this confrontation, the controversial U.S. proposal to collaborate with Russia to fight ISIS in Syria and broker a peace deal with the Assad regime had suddenly collapsed, much to the embarrassment of U.S. officials — a press conference to unveil the plan had already been planned and podiums already placed on stage. U.S. officials deny a connection, however.
At this juncture, the Obama administration is considering sanctions on GRU Russian intelligence officials, as well as a proportional cyber response. As for a breakthrough in Syria, Kerry is still publicly appealing and failing to convince Russia to rein in Iranian militias fighting on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
Arab diplomats tell me they are convinced that Russia, Iran and Syria are doing whatever is necessary — including the slaughter in Aleppo — to win before Donald Trump takes office. Trump has expressed a desire to align with Moscow.
It is perfectly legal for President Obama to appoint Merrick Garland as the next Supreme Court Justice, because the Senate has refused to give Garland a hearing.
Singer leads stealth campaign to thwart Trump
Singer Barbra Streisand, a major Hillary Clinton supporter and one of Hollywood’s most outspoken leftist activists, is calling on President Obama to bypass Congress and unilaterally appoint his pick for the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Senate declined to hold hearings or votes on Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination as part of its broad “advice and consent” power. Obama nominated Garland in March to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Now that Donald Trump has won the election and is set to nominate a judge, Streisand has circulated a petition urging Obama to quickly appoint Garland to the court before Trump can be sworn in as president.
“If you are concerned about the Supreme Court, please consider going to this website and signing a petition asking President Obama to appoint Merrick Garland,” Streisand wrote in a note to her supporters. “According to The Washington Post, he has the power to do this since Congress has refused to vote, and apparently that can be considered a waiver of its rights to advise and consent. If there are 100,000 signatures, the White House must give this its consideration.”
Streisand was referencing a Washington Post column by Gregory L. Diskant published in April. It was headlined, “Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing.”
The Appointments Clause of the Constitution states that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.”
Diskant claims the Appointments Clause actually grants two powers to the president: the power to “nominate” and the power to “appoint.” While the president must clearly seek the “Advice and Consent of the Senate,” Diskant argues, by deciding not to act and hold hearings or votes, the Senate has waived its right of advice and consent.
Somehow, Diskant claims, the Senate’s failure to act on the nomination allows the president to unilaterally appoint an individual to the court.
At the time of this report, Streisand’s petition had 107,464 signatures – more than the 100,000 required to get a response from the White House.
On several occasions, Democrats have filibustered and blocked judicial nominations made by Republican presidents. For example, in 1987, when Joe Biden served as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he fought to stop confirmation of Ronald Reagan Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork. Biden explained, “The framers clearly intended the Senate to serve as a check on the president and guarantee the independence of the judiciary. The Senate has an undisputed right to consider judicial philosophy.”
In August, Streisand told Australian journalist Michael Usher she would leave America if Trump won his race for the White House.
“He has no facts. I don’t know, I can’t believe it. I’m either coming to your country, if you’ll let me in, or Canada,” she said.
It remains unclear whether she will actually honor her promise to leave.
Check this out…
And all the azzwipe trite-wingers in America hating on Obama!
Russian poll respondents like Donald Trump, but they’re the only ones.
The president of the United States has undeniable influence throughout the world. Even though they don’t get to vote, global citizens have preferences ― often strong preferences ― about who Americans should elect.
The results this year aren’t surprising. Majorities of people polled in many countries prefer Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump ― except in Russia.
A survey done in August and September by Worldwide Independent Network of Market Researchers and Gallup International asked respondents in 45 countries who they would vote for if they could vote in the U.S. election. The only country that Clinton didn’t win was Russia, where respondents preferred Trump by a 23-point margin.
No other country was even close to Russia’s numbers. The U.S. was the second-most favorable to Trump in the survey, giving Clinton only a 7-point margin over the Republican. China preferred Clinton by a 9-point margin. Every other country gave Clinton a lead of at least 20 points.
Ipsos Global asked panelists in 25 countries who is likely to win the election in its October poll. The only places where more people thought Trump would win than Clinton were Serbia and China. The Republican was favored by a 10 percent margin in Serbia and less than 4 points in China. In both countries, over 30 percent of survey respondents said they didn’t know. Russia wasn’t one of the countries surveyed by Ipsos.
The most favorable results for Clinton from Ipsos were in Mexico, South Korea, Norway, Chile and Colombia. Over 80 percent of respondents in those countries said Clinton will win.
Certainly some of the global lean to Clinton can be explained by negative impressions of Trump. In August, a Pew Research Center survey of 15 countries reported that most respondents weren’t confident in Trump’s abilities to lead internationally. His highest marks were in China and Italy, in which just over 20 percent of respondents said they were confident in his capacity to lead on foreign affairs. In Greece, only 3 percent of poll takers placed any confidence in Trump.
Clinton’s numbers were much higher, as were Barack Obama’s. German Chancellor Angela Merkel did better than Trump as well. Even Russian president Vladimir Putin was generally more trusted than Trump.
Take your whuppin’ like a man, Trump!
The woman is going to whup your racist ass from sea to shining sea.
President Obama had some harsh words for Donald Trump’s charges that the presidential election is going to be rigged — “Stop whining.”
With the GOP nominee trailing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the polls, Trump has turned to claiming that if he loses, the election is rigged. Both Democrats and Republicans have called such rhetoric very dangerous, and election law experts, including Ohio State University’s Edward Foley on Tuesday’s Morning Edition, have said such a scenario is “extraordinarily unlikely.”
In a Tuesday afternoon Rose Garden press conference with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, President Obama served up some of his harshest criticism yet of Trump’s baseless claims. He said such talk threatens to undermine American democracy at its very core, especially the peaceful transfer of power.
“I have never seen in my lifetime, or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the elections process before votes have even taken place,” the president said. “It’s unprecedented. It happens to be based on no facts.”
And Obama pointed out that many battleground states, such as Florida, are run by a Republican governor and his Republican appointees who are backing Trump.
“The notion that somehow if Mr. Trump loses Florida it’s because of ‘those people’ that you have to watch out for,” referring to language many have interpreted as directed toward minority voters, “is both irresponsible, and by the way, doesn’t really show the kind of leadership and toughness that you’d want out of a president.”
And, the president argued, it shows such a person who cries foul isn’t ready for the challenges of the Oval Office.
“You start whining before the game’s even over, if whenever things are going badly for you and you lose you start blaming somebody else, then you don’t have what it takes to be in this job,” he said.